M/F training at PISC is the same now. Is it time for Marine boot camp to have coed companies & series? Please explain why or why not.

I think for combat arms, including Special Forces (and I include the USMC as Special Forces), should train and fight separately. From around the ages of 12-13 years old boys and girls are separated in competitive sports. We do this for many reasons, but mainly because men and women are DIFFERENT. Denying basic biological and physiological facts in order to fulfill some politically correct ideal ignores the PURPOSE and FUNCTION of combat arms - to fight and win wars. Mixed teams, which you may see in recreational sports leagues, church leagues and college intramurals, are for fun, not for all the marbles. There is a REASON why there are no women in the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL. It doesn't mean women can't play football, basketball, baseball or hockey competitively, it means their level of play is not as effective. However, these professional leagues represent less than one percent of male athletes, the very best. The very best female athletes can beat over 90 percent of all men. If a competitive sports team loses a game the consequences could be a bruised ego. In battle, losers die. Women have been successfully integrated into the combat support and combat service support role of Military Police in the Army for over thirty years and have proven themselves effective in combat in these roles, and some, such as SGT Leigh Ann Hester, Silver Star winner from a 2004 action in Iraq, have demonstrated combat skill above and beyond expectations. The best I think we can do is offer combat arms an Special Forces opportunities for women in segregated units. You want to fight with everything on the line, then do it together, just like sports. Women are accustomed to all female competitive activities. The best female teams can beat almost all male teams. Let women design their own uniforms, equipment, supplies and weapons. Keep common ammunition, but let women design and use weapons effective for them. I am sure that over time the best females will rise to the level of an effective and elite fighting force - together.

No. The simple answer is because males and females aren't in a 50/50 split. Imagine splitting 4th Battalion between the 1st 3 male battalions. Now you've got platoons of 50 males and like 2 or 3 females. That is an instant recipe for disaster.

I'm not foolish enough to think sexual assaults/rapes won't happen. You've got young people in the sexual prime of their life in a hormonally charged environment. Things are going to happen.

Until they've fully been instilled with our Corps values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment, they don't rate to train together. They're still nasty civilians stuck in their nasty civilian ways.

As one that has been involved in both the first failed attempt and the eventual "success" of integrated basic training in the United States Army, I have some insite into this issue.

The original intent of the policy was that in Combat Support and Combat Service Support units, both males and females would be assigned to and work together, so putting them in an integrated environment in basic combat training (BCT) would assist in expediting this transition.

In the integrated BCT environment males and females do not share sleeping and hygiene facilities. In the company area they are separated at night and all of the females sleep in the same Bay Area, which is off limits to the males and then are integrated back into the platoons for training day. When going through CIF, the males and females are separated for clothing issue nor do they share the same areas for physical exams.

In the original concept, there were three platoons of males and one platoon of females that were never integrated at the platoon level. This was a complete failure. The physical limitations of the females always dictated that road marches and similar physical training the females were always being left behind. During most other types of training the disparity lessened and in some cases the females excelled over the men. But because they remained separated throughout training, this never truely accomplished the mission of "integrating" the Soldiers. This first attempt at training "together but separately" was deemed a failure and was discontinued.

The second iteration which has been pretty much in use since, the females are truly integrated within the platoon concept with the males with the exception of the above noted sleeping and and hygiene areas at night.

Of course there are and will always be advantages and disadvantages to this training. There will always be exceptions but for the most part the males are more physically capable than the females in basic. As mentioned before, the road marches have to be adjusted for the average shorter heights of the females which may not challenge many of the males to the extent they need to be. On the plus side I have seen many female trainees make excellent peer instructors in other areas of training where a need for a higher degree of patience and concentration are required. In the field environment, the males and females which have been paired into Buddy teams with same sex Soldiers, the environment is adopted to ensure as much privacy as the environment will allow. Different sexes don't share tents: latrines, showers and the like are either male or female or are to be used by one sex or the other but not simultaneously.

And in all cases training together basic does expedite that integration of both sexes to the military environment that they will find themselves in the AIT, when assigned to their first duty assignments and beyond.

Integrated Combat Arms units are a whole other area of discussion.