Should GIBT (Gender Integrated Basic Training) Be Abolished?

Should Co-Ed Basic Training Continue?

  • Yes - It's A Great Idea

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No Way - Too Many Problems

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes - But It Needs Changes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters


Active member
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?
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.
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.
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. :D
Their platoon was thenceforth known as the "Roof Rangers". Sans those few soldiers, of course.
Oh, mixed basic is a BAD idea.
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.
Thanks for the clarification Redneck, i've always wondered about that. I guess just because in polite conversation 'female' is "rude".
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.
"Putting young, undisciplined civilian males and females together in a training environment offers nothing but problems."

Its been proved possible in the Swedish military :)
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.
At first I was going to vote No way, but then I realised that if there are females at the front line with you, you should train with them to. It doesn't make sense to avoid problems in training, that you will have in the field, does it? :?
I'd say that you should train for every real possibility, that means with the females. But I'm a newbie here, correct me if I'm wrong
AlexKall said:
"Putting young, undisciplined civilian males and females together in a training environment offers nothing but problems."

Its been proved possible in the Swedish military :)

Where in that statement does it say "Not possible?" Attention to detail ;)
In France, we started to introduce women in combat units around 1985 and we delivered our first female Infantry and Tank platoon commanders in 1987...Nice media show but it did not work really well.
Women are women and just treated as women....even when they try to act macho!
Men see them as potential problems or want to please (and score!). Everything has to change AROUND them (MEN, lodging, showers, bathrooms, language, attitude) and most of the time (because Women are women and just treated as women) things get more complicated with all the effort to make "feminization" work despite everything else.
Women can be good fighter pilots, cops, MPs, or work in support branches.
You don't want them in a Sub, With an infantry or tank platoon manning a fox hole for weeks in a male environment...
Women would be uncomfortable and would make male counterparts uncomfortable...We are not equal! Sorry....we are different and have to live with that and the male-female differences always create "discomfort" especially when coupled with the high testoterone macho and protective attitude typical to the males of our specie in the military! I am sorry to say it but keeping women away makes things a lot simpler on the front line.
Furthermore, when a female soldier is killed, wounded or captured, there is more noise (media, politicians, people) about her than when it is a regular grunt. From the hierarchy through the media, everything focuses on the female side of the victim...things that never happen when Joe Grunt is hit.
We are not talking about the tactics of the "couple" ( base military unit composed of a female and a male soldier) taught and implemented at home, in facilities that have all the comforts and laws and regulations to make it work! We are not talking about women capabilities to fight! We are talking about war and mixed units and macho guys and emancipated women! It does not work because the Macho guy will always try to be liked by the female soldier, to take a peak or score, to get out of his way to help her when in trouble, to compete for her, to stand up and protect her....and all these stupid things men are known for doing around women, stupid things that complicate everything on the frontline!!! It does not work because of the way women might want to take advantage of that, because of that way they have to cry when they cannot do it anymore ( :lol: ), because their need for isolation for their own things, because of their natural modesty ( :?: ), because they are more vulnerable to rape than men are if captured....because they are women and need xtra protection according to modern civilization!!!
I am a macho moron and helped so many to carry their backpack, climb the rope, strip the 20mm gun, cross the obstacle....and I HATED EVERY MINUTE OF THIS CULTURAL WEAKNESS!
Re: Should GIBT (Gender Integrated Basic Training) Be Abolis

I'm grateful it wasn't in existance when I went through basic back in '86.
I say no to integration.
When I went through basic it was just too distracting to have males around. Most of the females were to interested in our brother flight than to focus on our training. After basic/boot camp then fine. It's a critical part of training and to be distracted by the opposite sex just makes you miss critical information.