Should GIBT (Gender Integrated Basic Training) Be Abolished?




View Poll Results :Should Co-Ed Basic Training Continue?
Yes - It's A Great Idea 3 14.29%
No Way - Too Many Problems 14 66.67%
Yes - But It Needs Changes 4 19.05%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
March 23rd, 2004  
DTop
 
 

Topic: Should GIBT (Gender Integrated Basic Training) Be Abolished?


GBIT is one of the policies implemented by the administration of then-President Bill Clinton. In 1994, Clinton's Secretary of the Army Togo D. West and Assistant Secretary Sara Lister ordered gender-integration of basic training programs to improve the morale of female trainees.
There have been studies of the effectiveness and the consequences of this policy. What do you think?
March 23rd, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
I still don't know how anyone looked at this on paper and said "Yeah, this will be a great idea!" As covered in another thread, males and females are different. Putting young, undisciplined civilian males and females together in a training environment offers nothing but problems. From the recruits sneaking away to satisfy their hormonal urges, to the lowering of physical standards during training. It's a distraction, and an unnecessary one at that. If one wishes to argue this is the only way to increase morale amongst female soldiers, all one has to do is look to the Marine Corps to see it's a trumped up BS argument. Their females have no problems with morale during recruit training, they're all equally miserable and all striving for a goal. In fact, it is my opinion that females get better training in the Marine Corps, not just because of the combat training (MCT) each one is required to go through .. but because they are seperate from the males during recruit training. The female DIs always want their recruits to stand out amongst the males at Parris Island, so they tend to be a little meaner and a little rougher than their male counterparts during training. There are less distractions, and that alows for more focus on discipline and training. The same goes for the males.
I'm probably getting a big off topic here, but there are a lot of problems with the way the Army handles BCT these days, and training males and females together is just one of many. However, ending the co-ed training, would get the Army back on the "right" path, and would be a good first step.
March 23rd, 2004  
DTop
 
 
This co-ed training has happened since I retired and it's hard for me to picture it. I can't imagine males and females being held to the same physical requirements and to lower them would do a disservice to the males. To maintain higher standards would do the same for females and how would two sets of requirements build the morale of female recruits? Hmmm makes me think that the Marines have the better idea.
--
March 24th, 2004  
Jamoni
 
We had females in the next BUILDING in basic, and THAT was a problem. Seems a couple of enterprising boys snuck out their windows, up across the roof, let themselves down a rope, and went over to try and score. They got caught by a female drill wearing a privates jacket.
She chatted them up until she found out their unit, let them go home, and then called their Platoon Sgt.
Their platoon was thenceforth known as the "Roof Rangers". Sans those few soldiers, of course.
Oh, mixed basic is a BAD idea.
March 30th, 2004  
FutureRANGER
 
 
It would seem to me in a mixed squad a guy could very easily be thinking about the girl (girl? woman? lady?) next to him rather than the immediate task at hand. The concept seems impossible in theory and practice. The men would try to impress the women who would try to out-do the men. Which leads to competition which leads to unecessary injuries. One of many problems, too many even to attempt the idea to begin with. Thats my 2 cents.
March 30th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureRANGER
(girl? woman? lady?).
Female.

You definitely never want to get caught calling a female servicemember "girl," big EO no-go.
March 31st, 2004  
FutureRANGER
 
 
Thanks for the clarification Redneck, i've always wondered about that. I guess just because in polite conversation 'female' is "rude".
April 2nd, 2004  
cryhavoc
 
Better to thin out the males that do have a problem with it during basic. No use wasting a bunch of money training a hillbilly who can't get along with women. MP's have had coed training for years and really not that many problems. As far as PT went (I was in an all male unit) we had fast and slow groups for PT runs anyway. The females I served with in Korea pulled their weight in the field. I had several guys in my platoon that performed way lower than the females. I had one female you did not want shooting at you she was that good.
April 2nd, 2004  
AlexKall
 
"Putting young, undisciplined civilian males and females together in a training environment offers nothing but problems."

Its been proved possible in the Swedish military
April 2nd, 2004  
levnbush
 
 
It's also been going on in the U.S.Army for a while now. A lot of people don't like t but, it's there. It isn't like they are housed together, just trained side by side. I'd have to say that I'd like it better if the training was separate though.