Top and Bottom States in U.S. Women’s Equality Rankings: Insights From Chip Lupo
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/22
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Chip Lupo examine the 2024 Women’s Equality Report rankings across U.S. states. Hawaii leads nationally, excelling in education, health, workplace equality, and political empowerment, followed by California, Minnesota, Maine, and New Mexico. At the bottom are Utah, Texas, Wyoming, Idaho, and Missouri, where cultural traditions, political conservatism, and limited progressive policies influence outcomes. The rankings heavily weight workplace environment and education/health, with income disparity as a key subcategory. Lupo stresses that economic opportunity is the foundation for women’s advancement. The report draws from credible federal and nonprofit sources to guide policy and improve equality.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Once again, we are here with the wonderful Chip Lupo to discuss what helps certain states achieve higher rankings in the Women’s Equality Report for the United States. Since the 1920 ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment—prohibiting sex-based discrimination in voting—there has been significant progress. Yet, as of 2024, the United States still ranks just forty-third globally in gender equality.
Let us start with the top five states. Hawaii leads the nation, securing top-five rankings across all categories and the number one position in education and health. Close behind are California at number two—with standout performance in workplace environment, political empowerment, and education and health—and Minnesota at number three, where women nearly match men in education and employment outcomes. Maine and New Mexico complete the top five, excelling across a range of equality indicators.
On the other end of the spectrum, the bottom five states are Utah (fiftieth), Texas (forty-ninth), Wyoming (forty-eighth), Idaho (forty-seventh), and Missouri (forty-sixth). Notably, despite its ranking, Utah will have a record number of women lawmakers in its 2025 legislature—around 30 percent of its membership. Across the United States, women will hold 33.2 percent of state legislative seats in 2025, with states such as California, New Mexico, and Colorado achieving female legislative majorities.
Chip Lupo: Hawaii’s lead is not surprising, as it ranks consistently high across workplace equality, political empowerment, and health and education. California and Minnesota also benefit from relatively small gender pay gaps, stronger workplace protections, and significant female representation in political leadership. Maine and New Mexico show that a balanced approach across multiple equality measures can lift a state into the top tier.
Jacobsen: That raises the question—what explains the low rankings for the bottom five?
Lupo: Several of these states, particularly Louisiana, Arkansas, and parts of Texas, have cultural and political traditions that remain more conservative regarding gender roles. Texas is unique because, although there are progressive urban centers, much of the state consists of smaller, lower-income areas where traditional gender expectations are more common. Utah and Idaho differ somewhat but also reflect political and cultural environments that do not prioritize women’s equality to the same degree as the top-ranking states.
Utah, in particular, still has a culture that remains predominantly traditional, even though the state has seen an influx of people from elsewhere. The cultural foundation in Utah is still heavily rooted in the LDS Church, and as such, it continues to embrace traditional gender roles. A significant portion of Idaho’s population shares similar influences—Idaho borders Utah, and LDS culture has some impact there as well. Beyond LDS affiliation, church life in general tends to be more prevalent in these regions. As a result, political leadership in these areas often votes less progressively than in other states.
Jacobsen: Looking at the data, Idaho ranks thirty-eighth, forty-eighth, and forty-eighth across the three main categories, while Utah ranks dead last in two of them. The rankings are based on three major dimensions: workplace environment, education and health, and political empowerment. Workplace environment and education and health are each weighted at forty points, while political empowerment carries twenty points, for a total of one hundred.
These weightings are not always obvious from a quick glance at the rankings. For example, in the top five states, education and health rankings range anywhere from sixth to twenty-ninth, yet their overall placement remains high because of strong performance in other areas.
When breaking down these categories, what was the rationale behind such a heavy weighting for education and health, along with the triple weighting of income disparity within workplace environment?
Lupo: It is an interesting breakdown, but it makes sense that women’s equality begins—and often ends—with the workplace. The starting point for equality in any demographic is economic opportunity. That is why the workplace environment should be weighted heavily; it is the entry point. When someone is gainfully employed, they are more likely to aspire to bigger and better things, including a move into politics.
Education and health are also critical, but the disparities in educational attainment still need work. One interesting aspect here is the metric on doctor visit affordability—it is not entirely clear why that would be weighted as heavily as it is. Nevertheless, I fully support the workplace environment having significant weight, because economic empowerment is the foundation. Once women have that foothold, they can advance into the political arena.
When it comes to disparity in advanced educational attainment, that is often an access issue. Addressing it would require reshaping public policy in states where these numbers lag behind.
Jacobsen: Even though the categories share similar weightings at the high end, what do you find to be the most interesting factor among the seventeen subcategories used in the ranking?
Lupo: For me, it still comes back to the workplace. The most interesting factor to me in the workplace category is income disparity, which has been debated for as long as I can remember. The disparity in the share of minimum-wage workers is another metric I found noteworthy. It was weighted somewhat less, as was the disparity in the average number of work hours. These are intriguing to me because minimum wage—being an entry-level wage—should not, in principle, be gender-specific.
It surprised me to see a measurable disparity in the share of minimum-wage workers by gender. Minimum wage rates are set by either federal law or state and local governments. So, to find a gap in the proportion of men and women working at minimum wage levels seemed unusual.
Jacobsen: My last question concerns the data sources. For this report, they included the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Women’s Law Center, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, The Nation’s Report Card, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Center for American Women and Politics. Why these sources? And for those who might not know, why is it important to rely on national or federal sources when conducting analyses that may influence policymakers and decision-makers?
Lupo: Most of our studies are heavily driven by government data, such as from the Census Bureau, BLS, and EEOC. What we try to do is balance those official figures with input from reputable think tanks and nonprofit organizations—like the National Women’s Law Center and the Center for American Women and Politics. These provide credible, independent perspectives.
We do this because we do not want our results to be based solely on government statistics, which can sometimes leave too much room for interpretation. By drawing from a well-rounded set of sources relevant to the topic, we can produce a more balanced and credible analysis.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts to tie this all together?
Lupo: Looking at geographic trends, I would say that in the bottom ten states, many are lower-income, largely rural, and still embrace traditional gender roles. That seems to be a consistent pattern. For the top five states, there is no clear geographic link, but if you compare them to an electoral college map, I think you will find that they tend to be more progressive politically.
Jacobsen: Very interesting. Chip, as always, thank you very much for your time. I will be in touch soon.
Lupo: Sounds good.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you.
Lupo: Thanks, Scott.
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 