You saw that image I posted earlier education, art & performance, and psychology as being heavily, heavily female in the US? When you're comparing bachelors, history is, without a doubt, far better than all of those.
I do realize that you're making the point that data can be interpreted in a number of ways, just had to point out that there are worse choices and that lots of women seem to love those really, really, really bad choices.
Median pay for a psychologist in the us 87K
Median pay for a HS teacher 56K
Post grad history guy that can't get hired on as a professor but still is teaching college classes...roughly minimum wage (I have a really good friend that falls into this category)
Now the interesting question is how many openings in teaching there are a year in the history field versus number of graduates.
As for art's and lit, same pay as a teacher if you're going into teaching
A&L has more teaching fields than History (English, Lit, Writing, Communication, theater...and quite a few more) so logic would dictate that there would be more teaching positions opening each year in A&L than history
Now the professions that can come out of Arts and Lit based on some quick checks
Newspaper, Periodical, Book, and Directory Publishers
Radio and Television Broadcasting
Other Information Services
Cable and Other Subscription Programming
Now the avg salary if employed might be lower with an A&L degree, but from my quick digging, it seems that there are far more employment opportunities within the field which to me, picking a degree that allows you to get a job...
Once you step out of positions that are specific to your degree, all else is going to be equal, a degree is a degree.
When you get to the top pay, out of A&L would be your actors and writers. How many in the history field make > 1,000,000? I'll give you a hint, it's far, far fewer than those that came from A&L.
So why is it you think a history degree is better than an A & L degree? To me it seems like a smarter choice.