With the continuous and in-depth understanding of the public examination, a series of initially confusing application conditions, such as the limited major, academic requirements, and age limits, have now become the common sense of most applicants.
However, among the many restrictions on public security, some positions choose to recruit men and women separately. For example, in the same unit, two positions are released, one is only for male students, and the other is only for female students.
There are also some units that specify that the positions released are limited to male students or female students. This kind of behavior of individual units recruiting only one gender candidate or recruiting candidates of two genders separately has been misinterpreted in the community.
Even, a considerable number of public examination training institutions are making a fuss about this in their preaching. On the one hand, various interpretations that cannot withstand scrutiny deny the fairness and impartiality of the public examination from the side, and on the other hand, it is easy to mislead candidates.
Recruit separate men and women
The use of gender as a major criterion for public examinations is not an ingenious one, it has been around for a long time, but in recent years it has been increasing. Moreover, gender restrictions are not only found in the national examination, but also widely distributed in the provincial examination.
For example, in the 2024 national examination, several positions listed by the Ministry of Public Security are restricted to men, and most positions in the Harbin Railway Public Security Bureau are also required to be men. On the contrary, the Rights and Interests Department and the Liaison Department of the All-China Women's Federation require that they be women.
For another example, in 2024, the No. 3 Prison of Henan Province will require women, but the Yanshi District People's Court of Luoyang City will only require women. There are also separate gender restrictions in the same unit, such as the Zhejiang Provincial Examination and the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, one requires women and the other requires men.
As the public examination moves towards refinement, there will definitely be more and more attempts to distinguish and adapt to the graded questions and gender restrictions. This is the general direction of reform and the general trend of recruitment.
Distorted interpretations
Many people have made different interpretations of the separate recruitment of men and women in the public examination. Unfortunately, some people have gone off track when they analyze it.
It has been argued that the restriction on recruitment of men and women is due to the imbalance in the internal sex ratio caused by recruitment in some units, and that it needs to be amended by mandatory regulations. This view ignores the fact that less than one-third of today's civil servants have passed the exam in recent years.
It is true that there is a gender bias in the recruitment. However, the current situation of the gender ratio of personnel in most units has both historical and practical reasons, and is not caused by the recruitment of public examinations in recent years.
It has also been suggested that the reason why there are more restrictions on men than women is because girls have a greater advantage than boys. There are even some training institutions that will start from the type of exam questions and public examination interviews, saying that boys have an advantage, and every girl saying that girls have an advantage.
There is no distinction between men and women
It is undeniable that, judging from the results, many units will show the result of an imbalance in the ratio of men and women. However, in most cases, the ratio of men and women is not even, and the results are naturally skewed.
As for which question type is suitable for boys and which question type is suitable for girls, it is even more nonsense. The types of questions in the public examination will only be suitable for candidates who are more prepared, regardless of men and women.
It is also a false proposition to decide which of the boys or girls has the advantage in the interview. The interviewer is not the person in charge of the unit, so there is no need to have a gender orientation in admission. Moreover, the interviewer has both men and women, and the difference in interview scores due to gender preferences is nothing more than wishful thinking and self-comfort.
In fact, the restriction of male and female genders in public examination positions is, in the final analysis, based on the consideration of job matching. The degree of job matching is caused by the difference between men and women.
Under this gender difference, mass organizations such as women's federations and trade unions naturally prefer to recruit female students, while front-line public security posts, statistical investigation teams, and court discipline inspection units with frequent business trips are also more inclined to male students, which is nothing to argue.
Rather than pondering whether the recruiting unit prefers boys or girls, think more about how to use gender restrictions to select positions. If it is said that whether or not fresh graduates are the biggest barriers to entry for the provincial examination, then gender-limited positions are the unthinking choice of the national examination.
In the battlefield of the public examination, there are only scores, regardless of men and women.