This article firstly gives a detailed analysis and comparison on certain civil service special examinations that still have gender restriction, such as national security agents, investigation officers, coast guards, and other special exams that used to have gender restriction in the past, such as customs officers and diplomatic officers. The results indicate that the qualification rate of females (the qualified divided by sitting) is indeed lower than that of males. After the gender restriction was eliminated, the number of females eligible for diplomatic consular officers has increased significantly. In a close review, however, it is found that the qualification rate of female consular officers in the language of English category over the past 4 years is actually lower than that of male examinees. In the recent gender-open exams for customs officers, a similar unfavorable situation for female participants is also revealed. In short, after the gender restriction was lifted, female examinees might face an even tougher competition.
All these recruiting governmental agencies have similar reasons for putting restriction on number of females being recruited. Yet many female group representatives disagree on those reasons. This article has collected opinions of various parties, and gives different viewpoints aiming at gender restriction reasons raised at each exam.
Based on the current laws and regulations of civil servants' screening, training, and appointment, this article discusses that the dilemma confronted by those government agencies which have gender restriction on recruitment exams, is actually not an issue about "gender", but in fact, "gender" is innocent, only sacrificed as "scapegoat" under the current rigid regulations concerned. Therefore, this article focuses on the following subjects of recruitment of public servants, dilemma confronted by recruitment, and how to overcome difficulties.