Best and Worst States for Women 2025
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/24
WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo discusses the best and worst states for women in 2025. Women face disparities in economic opportunities and political representation, with only 26% of Senate seats and 28.7% of House seats held by women. WalletHub’s analysis ranks Hawaii, California, and Minnesota as top states for gender equality, while Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi lag behind due to high poverty and unemployment rates. Socioeconomic conditions, education, and policy play critical roles. Based on government and nonprofit data, the study emphasizes economic empowerment as key to improving women’s health and safety outcomes nationwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here again with WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo to discuss the best and worst states for women in 2025. The general finding is that women continue to face disparities compared to men in most states. Even though women constitute 51% of the U.S. population, they represent a significant portion of minimum-wage workers and have lower political representation. In the 119th Congress (2025–2027), women hold 26% of Senate seats and 28.7% of House seats (CAWP). Internationally, the U.S. shows moderate gender parity, but there’s ample room for improvement to achieve true equality. What are your general findings on this issue?
Chip Lupo: Scott, you’re correct. Significant efforts are needed nationwide to enhance women’s representation in the workforce and politics. However, some states excel in these areas. According to WalletHub’s “Best & Worst States for Women’s Equality” report, the top states include Hawaii, California, and Minnesota.
For instance, Hawaii ranks first overall, with high scores in workplace environment and political empowerment. California follows, performing well across multiple categories. Minnesota also ranks third, indicating strong performance in women’s economic and social well-being.
Conversely, states like Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi rank lower regarding women’s equality. These states often have higher unemployment rates for women, greater percentages of women living below the poverty line, and more women unable to afford medical care due to costs.
The disparity between the top and bottom states underscores the impact of policies and representation. States with higher female legislative representation tend to enact laws that advance women’s rights and opportunities. In contrast, states with lower female representation may lack such supportive policies.
Notably, the gap between the highest-ranked state, Hawaii, and the lowest-ranked states is significant, highlighting the varying degrees of progress across the country. This emphasizes the need for continued efforts to promote gender equality nationwide.
Jacobsen: This one is quite widespread, ranging from 77.22 to 35.73. What do you think are the reasons for this wide or flat spread among states regarding the best and worst states for women in the United States?
Lupo: Well, when you’re talking about something that is, for the most part, subjective—such as women’s equality—it’s not always cut and dry. A lot of it comes down to policy. The high-ranking states tend to be more progressive in their thinking and legislation, while the bottom-ranking states lack those policy measures.
It’s largely policy-driven, but socioeconomics also plays a major role. When discussing factors like unemployment rates or median income levels, the lowest-ranking states tend to be lower-income states with fewer job opportunities.
For example, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington, D.C. have some of the highest median annual incomes. These states have strong economies, robust job markets, and policies that support women’s economic participation. In contrast, the lower-ranking states struggle in multiple areas.
One would think that some of the lower-ranking states would excel in at least one category, making them better places for women in some respects. However, the numbers simply do not support that. For instance, Arkansas ranks among the lowest in women’s participation in the last presidential election, with a high 30s, 40s, and even a 50th-place ranking in some metrics.
Jacobsen: How important are socioeconomic conditions, such as wealth, education, and employment opportunities, in achieving gender parity?
Lupo: Oh, it’s a huge factor. Everything ties together. Let’s take a closer look:
- Massachusetts traditionally has some of the best public school systems and elite universities in and around Greater New England.
- Not by coincidence, Massachusetts has the lowest unemployment rate for women.
- Arkansas (ranked 48th overall) is in the bottom 10 for economic well-being and ranks 43rd in women’s unemployment, with a rate of over 4%, while Massachusetts is under 3%.
- Minnesota has the fourth-lowest percentage of women living below the poverty line, while Mississippi ranks last (50th).
Another key economic indicator is public high school graduation rates:
- Massachusetts and Minnesota both have graduation rates above 90% (Minnesota is nearly 94%).
- Arkansas and Oklahoma hover just above 80%.
- Mississippi ranks last, with a graduation rate of just under 74%.
Jacobsen: In the breakdown, we have economic and social well-being (60 points) and women’s health care and safety (40 points). These are significant weighted categories. My question is twofold:
- What subcategories within these broader categories are particularly noteworthy?
- What are the sources for the data collected on 02/03/2025?
Jacobsen: What was the reason for selecting these particular data sources?
Lupo: Well, the data was primarily drawn from government sources, including the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CDC, National Center for Education Statistics, and the FBI. Additionally, we incorporated data from a large number of nonprofit think tanks as well as U.S. News & World Report.
What’s interesting, as you mentioned, is that this analysis is based on just two key dynamics:
- Women’s health care and safety
- Women’s economic and social well-being
The weighting is slightly tilted toward economic and social well-being, and that’s intentional. I believe one drives the other—if women are first empowered economically and socially, many health and safety issues tend to improve.
For example, we have a category measuring the economic clout of women-owned firms and the share of businesses owned by women. If women gain economic empowerment, the second dimension—health care and safety—tends to improve. That includes factors like:
- Uninsured rates
- Access to preventive health care
- Depression and suicide rates
A strong foundation in economic and social well-being leads to better health outcomes.
Jacobsen: Those are all my questions for today, Chip. I appreciate your time again.
Lupo: Fantastic, Scott. Excellent, man. Thank you.
Jacobsen: Take care. We’ll talk next week, I’m sure.
Lupo: Yeah, I’m sure. There’s always a new report, so thank you very much.
Jacobsen: Anytime, Scott. Take care. Bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 