When a woman should have won

There’s a viral post on social media titled: ‘Violet Beauregarde should’ve won Wonka’s chocolate factory.’

We all know the story of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, beloved children’s book from author Roald Dahl, and we all know that after a series of mis-adventures, Charlie Bucket emerges victorious and inherits the factory. But here’s the thing: this social media post makes compelling arguments­—with ‘iron clad evidence’—to convince us that Violet Beauregarde was actually the deserving heir to the whimsical world Willy Wonka had built.

The post goes on in detail:

‘She’s the most knowledgeable about candy. She’s committed to it, and she knows her stuff. She was able to switch to candy bars for the sake of the contest, so we know she has personal discipline and is goal-oriented. She’s the most fit to run a business. Violet is competitive, determined, hard-working, and willing to take risks. She’s the most sympathetic to the Oompa Loompas; she criticises Veruca when she demands to buy one. More importantly, Wonka has been testing the 3-course-meal gum that “always goes wrong” on Oompa Loompas­—Violet is ready to put herself on the front line, instead of treating the Oompa Loompas as disposable. And her “misstep” in the factory is reasonable. Violet takes a personal risk to share knowledge with everyone—chewing gum is her special interest, and unlike the other children who contaminate the chocolate river, the vent walls, or destroy the workspace, Violet caused no harm to anyone or anything but herself. She’s passionate, sarcastic, candy-obsessed, free-thinking, and a total firecracker. Violet is already basically Wonka. She’s even better than Wonka, because she doesn’t endanger others.

Violet should’ve been picked to inherit the chocolate factory.’

Unfortunately, the truth is no different to the fiction for many women:

A study from Columbia University found gender bias is still present in references when applying for a job, further education or research grants. Researchers examined 1,224 recommendation letters for applicants to post-doctoral research in the geosciences and found women were half as likely to receive excellent endorsements compared to their male counterparts. Women were being described as ‘nurturing’ and ‘helpful’, while men were called ‘confident’ and ‘ambitious.’ And both male and female referees were more likely to write a strong letter for male applications than for female applicants. It’s possible men choose these adjectives for their letters because these are the same characteristics they want to see in themselves; they identify with the qualities they value in themselves and are more comfortable identifying them in other men. And while it may seem good advice to highlight these characteristics in your application, focusing on the traits men value merely perpetuates that male traits are more valuable to businesses. That’s not going to improve things in the long run.

Gender biases persist across the workforce. New research published in the American Psychologist found women get passed over for jobs when employers want ‘brainy’ workers. Even though female students earn higher grades on average and are more likely to attend a university and graduate than their male peers, men are still seen (by some) as intellectually superior to women and are more likely to be hired for roles considered ‘smart’, like those commonly associated with fields like physics and engineering. The problem here is compounded by the fact that even if people want to combat gender bias in their hiring decisions, women still have the table stacked against them—the pool of applicants will be predominately men. Our perceptions of intelligence stem from an early age: the researchers conducted an experiment with young children, in which they were taught a team game and allowed to pick their teammates. Half the children were told the game was for ‘really, really smart people’, while the other half were not: they all showed a preference for teammates of their own gender, but those who had been told the game was for ‘smart’ children were more likely to choose a boy than a girl. That even young children show these gender biases is troubling. Girls may get passed over for certain school activities or subject choices through unconscious bias, but they may also internalise this message and view themselves as less qualified.

It’s likely they’ll have this message consolidated throughout their lives: even in a country as generally women-friendly as Norway, women have a much lower chance of being promoted than men—even when they have the same position, experience and tenure. Even when controlling for industry, occupation, age, education, experience, tenure, and whether they are part-time or full-time, women are less likely to get a promotion than men—with internal promotion rates 34 to 37 percent lower than for men. The lack of mobility to higher ranking jobs adds to the gender wage gap.

The higher you go up the corporate ladder, the fewer women you find. Women are less likely to be promoted to middle-management positions, so there are fewer women in the pool of candidates for the top jobs. This is especially pronounced for women of colour, who face the most significant obstacles to advancement. With managerial positions lacking women, female employees on the level below find themselves without the mentors they need to advance their careers and so the cycle continues.

It’s not just the corporate world where women find themselves on the losing side; many female scientists are robbed of recognition throughout their careers. According to Ruth Lewin Sime, a retired chemistry professor at Sacramento City College who has written on women in science, female researchers have had to work as ‘volunteer’ faculty members, seen credit for significant discoveries they’ve made assigned to male colleagues, and even been written out of textbooks.

Born in Liu Ho, China in 1912, Chien-Shiung Wu was recruited to Columbia University in the 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project. She stayed in the United States after the war and became known as one of the best experimental physicists of her time. In the mid-1950s, Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang approached Wu to help disprove the law of parity—that in quantum mechanics, two physical systems such as atoms that are mirror images would behave in identical ways. Wu used cobalt-60, a radioactive form of cobalt, to blow this law apart. This discovery saw Yang and Lee granted the 1957 Nobel Prize—Wu was omitted entirely.

Chien-Shiung Wu should have won the Nobel Prize. Violet Beauregarde should have won the chocolate factory. ■