Why do ''feminine'' jobs pay a lot less?

Hairdressers and plumbers - let's say a woman's standard cut is £50 in the south east. A plumber's typical job is probably more lucrative but they have to fund parts and are less likely to be "fully booked" than hairdressers, who have clients coming in on fairly regular schedules. A hairdresser, I believe, tends to rent a chair in a salon so is paying rent and receptionist etc out of his/her earnings (btw, though the majority of hairdressers may be women, I don't think it's "almost all") - the two business models are entirely different.

What are your thoughts, Annie?

I think with 'nurturing' jobs like teaching or healthcare, which are usually seen as more female, they are often seen as 'vocations' rather than jobs which someone has had to work very hard to qualify in. You hear this all the time in discussions about teachers' strikes - lots of people think teachers should be expected to martyr themselves and to keep quiet about crap pay and conditions because its a 'vocation' and 'won't somebody think of the children?!' Whereas I can't imagine anyone expecting an engineer or a doctor to put the job before their own wellbeing.

I think that 'nurturing' is seen as an inherent part of being female, that women are 'hardwired' (loathe that word) to want to take care of people, which again undermines the hard work of people in those sorts of jobs. Same with your example of construction v cleaning - I think lots of people would consider that construction requires some skills and hard work, whereas cleaning is just something that women do naturally. I've heard people describe cleaning as 'skivvying' - I've never heard anyone describe a male labourer or construction worker the same way.

Would be interested to hear other people's thoughts