I went back and looked at those two tables again and think there may be another issue at play. If you look at those two tables, the immediately obvious differe

I went back and looked at those two tables again and think there may be another issue at play. If you look at those two tables, the immediately obvious difference is that many of the jobs in the first table (male dominated) are technical jobs that are more likely to be solitary in nature (or have more alone time involved in general) and those in the second category are social/verbal in nature. That's the obvious difference, but does nothing to address/explain your observation about supply versus demand, at least not on the surface. Most if not all of the jobs in the first table happen to also be jobs in fields that get bigger with the number of discoveries and the amount of progress made. Take one many of us are familiar with, computer science. The more progress in the field of computing there is, the more day to day problems can be solved with computers and the more reinventing of solutions in new languages or on new systems. Computing in general is a field where the more progress there is, the faster the growth of the field in terms of jobs available to tackle the problems that are are now solvable by the field. This is generally applicable to all the jobs in the first table. They all operate on the frontier of what is possible and solutions invented today produces demand for more people to work on new solutions built on those old solutions. Essentially for those fields, job growth is somewhat exponential or at grows with the product of population growth multiplied by inventions in that field. In a way, this above average job growth/demand of those in the first category is a corollary to the Luddite Fallacy. The first list is essentially a list of the fields where technological advances are generating the most new jobs. The demand for least remunerative jobs on the other hand basically all grow approximately linearly with population growth. For example, it doesn't matter how many new ways we invent to teach children, treat psychiatric patients or deal with the problems of homelessness or domestic abuse, the number of teachers, psychologists/psychiatrists and social workers needed is going to be relatively constant per capita. Obviously none of this addresses the issue of why women generally make less remunerative life choices, but it does explain why those jobs on the first list are likely to always be paid more and why the jobs on the second list are likely to see little or no growth how remunerative they can be, possibly ever. The differences in remuneration between the first and second lists is probably only going to get worse regardless of whether men or women are doing the work. This is because the challenges in those fields represented by the first list are probably going to start pushing the limits of individual human capacity. Most of the low hanging fruits of progress in those fields have been delivered. The problems remaining in those fields are becoming hard enough that fewer and fewer people have the capacity to deliver solutions despite the increase in demand by society to solve those problems. With respect to gender inequality, given this prediction, what we can hope for is that the income disparity between those two tables will become so wide that the best and brightest women will act in their rational self interest (economically) and choose careers in the first category with greater frequency until only the best and brightest, regardless of gender, are filling in positions made available by all new job growth in those categories.