From Eye Color to Gender: How Jane Elliott's Classroom Experiment Mirrors the Modern Treatment of Masculinity

In 1968, Jane Elliott, a third-grade teacher in Riceville, Iowa, conducted a bold and controversial classroom experiment that would come to be recognized as one of the most powerful demonstrations of how discrimination and prejudice take root. In the wake of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, Elliott sought to help her white students understand the arbitrary cruelty of racism. Her tool? Eye color. On one day, she told her class that brown-eyed children were smarter, cleaner, and better than their blue-eyed peers. Brown-eyed children received privileges, while blue-eyed children were demeaned and denied recess. The next day, she reversed the roles. What she observed was chilling: within minutes, children began to conform to their assigned roles. The "superior" group acted arrogant and condescending, while the "inferior" group became withdrawn, anxious, and performed worse academically. The exercise was a vivid demonstration of how easily social hierarchies can be constructed—and how quickly they can damage a child’s self-perception.

More than fifty years later, Elliott’s insights are more relevant than ever. Although we no longer divide children by eye color in classrooms, we have developed subtler—and often more insidious—ways of creating social hierarchies. One such modern construct is the term "toxic masculinity." Originally coined within academic and therapeutic contexts to describe specific harmful behaviors associated with some aspects of traditional male gender roles, the phrase has since entered popular culture as a blunt instrument. Instead of being used with nuance to critique destructive behaviors, "toxic masculinity" is often employed as a sweeping condemnation of masculinity itself. In doing so, it functions much like Elliott’s classroom exercise, designating boys and men as morally inferior based on an intrinsic characteristic.

In Elliott’s experiment, children quickly learned to internalize their assigned value. Similarly, in today's culture, boys and men are increasingly exposed to messaging—through schools, media, and even therapeutic models—that suggests something inherently wrong or dangerous about being male. They are told they are prone to violence, emotionally stunted, and responsible for a host of social ills. Like the blue-eyed children, many boys internalize this message, leading to shame, self-doubt, and disengagement. They may feel they must apologize simply for being who they are.

Just as Elliott's students began to perform worse academically when placed in the "inferior" group, boys today are underperforming in schools. Boys now lag behind girls in reading and writing skills, are more likely to be diagnosed with behavioral disorders, and are more likely to drop out of high school and avoid college. Could part of this trend be linked to the erosion of positive male identity? When a boy’s natural traits—physical energy, competitiveness, assertiveness—are consistently labeled as problematic, he may begin to disengage from institutions that seem to reject him.

The effects aren’t limited to boys. As Elliott observed, the "superior" group in her class quickly became smug and less empathetic. Girls growing up in a culture that equates masculinity with toxicity may unconsciously develop a sense of superiority or distrust toward boys and men. They may be less inclined to empathize with male struggles or more likely to assume bad intent in male behavior. This moral ranking damages the ability of boys and girls to form healthy, respectful relationships.

 

The consequences extend into adulthood. For men, the persistent framing of masculinity as a problem can result in emotional suppression not because masculinity prohibits feeling, but because society penalizes men both for expressing emotion and for not doing so in the approved manner. A man who shows grief through silence and action rather than verbal sharing is often seen as "emotionally unavailable." Conversely, a man who expresses anger or frustration may be labeled as aggressive or toxic. This double bind can leave men emotionally stranded, unable to find safe ways to process and communicate their feelings.

Women, too, are affected. The widespread narrative of toxic masculinity fosters fear and suspicion, undermining trust between the sexes. It can shape how women approach relationships, parenting, and even professional environments. Some may feel the need to "correct" men or view them as a threat to be managed. Others may feel disillusioned or hopeless about finding male partners who meet ever-shifting emotional standards. In either case, the relational divide grows deeper.

Jane Elliott's experiment demonstrated how power dynamics based on arbitrary traits can warp perceptions, relationships, and individual potential. She showed how quickly children could learn to see others—and themselves—as lesser or greater, good or bad, based on a label. Today, we risk doing the same by using a term like "toxic masculinity" without nuance or precision. When boys hear the phrase, many don't interpret it as "some forms of male behavior are harmful"—they hear "something is wrong with you." When girls hear it, they may internalize a belief that maleness is suspect.

It would be unthinkable today to conduct an experiment like Elliott's in a public school. But that doesn't mean we're not running our own social experiments, with equally high emotional stakes. We are shaping a generation of boys and girls with the messages we send—explicit and implicit—about gender, value, and morality. If Elliott taught us anything, it’s that these messages matter deeply, and that the harm caused by labeling can manifest quickly and painfully.

The solution is not to ignore harmful behaviors associated with male socialization, just as Elliott's goal was not to deny the reality of racism. But we must be precise in our language and compassionate in our teaching. We must separate masculinity from harm and focus instead on the specific actions and attitudes that cause damage—regardless of gender. Otherwise, we risk constructing a new hierarchy of virtue that punishes half the population simply for being born male.

In a world that claims to value inclusion, compassion, and equality, we must remember that these ideals apply to everyone. Boys and men are not exceptions. The path forward lies not in moral condemnation but in understanding, dialogue, and a shared commitment to human dignity—blue eyes, brown eyes, male or female.

For too long, the challenges faced by boys and men in Maryland have been overlooked. From distorted media portrayals to cultural narratives that paint masculinity as a problem, boys and men are often viewed through a lens of suspicion or deficit. In late April, I presented the following 15 ideas to the Governor’s staff—not a list of services or budget items, but focused proposals aimed at improving the public image and cultural understanding of boys and men in our state. These ideas are about restoring balance, affirming the value of boys and men, and challenging the negative stereotypes that continue to shape policy and perception. If we truly cared about them, this is where we would start.

I would love to hear any ideas you might have for additional items.

IDEAS

1. Using social media to share positive messages about boys and men
For example, on platforms like X.com, we could promote male-positive, research-based messages. I could assemble a group of experts on boys and men to contribute content—brief, impactful posts that could be shared by either the Governor or designated staff. Maybe like this:

 

2. Publish male-positive op-eds in Maryland newspapers
My team could write short, male-positive articles that the Governor could submit as op-eds to local newspapers. He could choose to take credit for the writing or cite the original sources—either approach would work. The key is getting these important messages into the public conversation.

3. Educate boys about the uniqueness of being male
Introduce age-appropriate lessons in health class, social media, or op-eds, that help boys understand what makes being male unique. For example, boys experience a surge of testosterone in the womb that shapes brain development and influences behaviors like play styles. Later, during puberty, rising testosterone levels can even reduce access to emotional tears. Helping boys understand their many biological differences can foster self-awareness, confidence, and a healthier sense of identity.

4. Father Facts - The Importance of Father Presence
Research has shown that fathers play a crucial role in their children's development. We are finding that many of the things that fathers do automatically with their children are instrumental in the child's development. Simple actions like throwing a child into the air, can aid in the child's later ability to navigate risks. Engaging in rough and tumble play has been linked to reducing future tendencies towards violence. Additionally, a father's role in setting limits contributes significantly to a child's development of empathy. Recognizing these impacts, and many others, can motivate fathers to be more involved with their children, driven by a sense of importance rather than guilt or shame. Dads Matter. These ideas can be shared via tweets, op-eds, in-service trainings etc.

5. Host a statewide essay contest in Maryland public schools
Launch an essay contest inviting boys to write on the topic, “The 5 Best Things About Being a Boy.” Winners could be selected at the school, county, and state levels, across elementary, middle, and high school divisions. Prizes might include a meeting with the Governor or having their essay published in the Baltimore Sun.

6. Distribute low-cost stickers with positive messages about boys and men
We could design simple, inexpensive stickers with messages like “Boys Are Good” or “Maryland Loves Men and Boys.” A local Maryland printer might be willing to donate a large batch—potentially thousands. These could be handed out to young students or used as small prizes and incentives. Students might compete to design the best sticker, and the winners would be used for distribution?

7. Explore donated ad space for male-positive messaging

Look into whether Maryland bus or train companies would be open to donating advertising space to promote positive messages about men and boys.

8. Helping Moms Understand Boys

With the rise in fatherless homes, it's more important than ever to help mothers understand their sons. This was the focus of my most recent book, and there’s so much that moms can learn that makes parenting boys easier and more effective.

What are the key differences between your sons and daughters—and how can you use those differences to better support your son while also making parenting less stressful? Boys often respond better to a different style of discipline and a different approach to handling emotions. When moms truly understand their sons, good things happen—for both of them.

9. Teach young men about the unique ways they process emotions
It’s an important but often overlooked fact that boys, even at a young age, process emotions differently. Teaching this concept can be incredibly beneficial for all boys. One approach is to share stories from cultures like the Dagura people of Africa, where men’s emotional responses are understood and valued differently. This helps boys see the diversity of emotional experiences. Another powerful way is to share stories of men overcoming trauma, such as how Michael Jordan healed after the murder of his father. These narratives can offer insights into emotional resilience and help boys understand their own emotional landscapes.

10. Launch a speaker series on boys, men, and masculinity
Create a speaker series focused on issues related to boys, men, and masculinity. If funding allows, these could be in-person events—but a more accessible and cost-effective approach would be to host them online. Virtual talks could be broadcast live, recorded, and then archived to build an online library of expert insights, available for ongoing education and outreach.

11. Calling Young Men: Share Your Voice
Invite boys and young men to send in short, 15-30 second videos answering this question:
What’s the toughest thing about being a boy today?

Too many boys grow up feeling like no one really cares about their struggles. Let’s change that.

This might allow our young men to speak up, be heard, and know they’re not alone. We’ll compile the videos and publish them to give boys a voice in a world that often overlooks them.

12. Create a Custom GPT Focused on Boys and Men
The technology now exists to upload books and articles into AI and have it answer questions based on that material. With a custom GPT, we can build a powerful tool that provides in-depth, accurate information about boys and men—grounded in trusted sources.

Even better, this tool can be customized to credit the authors and include links to their books or articles whenever their work is referenced. That makes it a win for both the public and the authors: people get reliable answers, and authors gain visibility and support. (I think you all know that I already started one for my books...ask it any question about men/boys and trauma/healing)

13. Encourage Maryland universities to develop Men’s Studies programs

Nearly all universities offer Women’s Studies programs—so it seems like a natural next step to create similar opportunities focused on men and boys. Encouraging Maryland universities to develop Men’s Studies courses or full programs would be a powerful way to foster deeper understanding of men, masculinity, and the male experience.

14. Consider establishing a Men’s Shed
The Men’s Shed movement, which began in Australia, has spread worldwide, though the U.S. has been slower to adopt it. However, the U.S. Men’s Shed Association is a great resource that could offer support. Men’s Sheds provide a space where men can gather, work on projects, or simply relax—whether cooking, watching TV, or enjoying each other’s company. It’s a unique opportunity to create a dedicated place for men to connect and engage in meaningful activities.

15. Begin the process of establishing a Commission for Men and Boys
Maryland has had a Commission for Women and Girls since the 1970s, but there is no equivalent body focused on the needs and challenges of boys and men. Creating a Commission for Men and Boys would provide a dedicated platform to address these issues and promote positive, research-informed policies. It’s a meaningful and necessary goal for greater balance and inclusion. (Actually this idea is getting started with some Maryland legislators expressing interest in sponsoring the bill.)

How Feminism Manufactured Fear and Distrust of Men

One of the clearest long-term examples of using fear, blame, victimhood, and resentment as a social tactic is the way feminism — backed by unwavering support from the media and lawmakers — has worked to embed fear, distrust, and blame into the minds of women and girls.

Nearly every major feminist campaign has been built on two themes: blaming men and claiming victimhood. Along the way, women have been encouraged to distrust men, to fear them, and to view their actions through a lens of suspicion.

The success of these campaigns has relied heavily on gynocentrism — a deeply embedded, often invisible bias. Most people don’t even realize they carry it, but it’s there, quietly shaping our instincts. Gynocentrism shows up as an automatic tendency to prioritize the needs, emotions, and concerns of women, while overlooking those of men. Feminists have strategically weaponized this bias, using it to pressure institutions and society into funneling more resources to women. 

In the previous post, The Origins of Hatred, we discussed how hatred often grows out of fear, distrust, resentment, and the belief that something rightfully yours could be stolen. When these emotions are stirred up, the chances of hatred taking root rise dramatically.

We’ve seen the slogans — the t-shirts and mugs that proudly say things like “I bathe in male tears.” That’s not just casual humor; it’s celebrating the pain of men. And when one group openly relishes the suffering of another, that’s a serious warning sign of hatred.

Sometimes, the hatred isn’t even hidden. It was spelled out plainly in a Washington Post article by Walters titled "Why Can't We Hate Men?" No subtle hints, no veiled language — just a blunt statement: we deserve to hate men.

Over the years, there have been plenty of openly misandrist books too, including the infamous S.C.U.M. Manifesto by Valerie Solanas. (S.C.U.M. stands for Society for Cutting Up Men.) Sound like the name of a hate group to you? It should.

It’s not hard to see: some women have been led — even encouraged — to hate men.

Let’s take a closer look at how this has been done, step by step.

Inventing the Patriarchy Monster

The first move was to create a villain: Patriarchy. Feminists claimed this invisible, omnipresent system had stolen women’s rights and opportunities for centuries — and that all men were participants. It was portrayed as a global conspiracy designed by men to oppress women.

This narrative cast women as perpetual victims and men as perpetual perpetrators. If women were victims of this monstrous system, it gave them a reason to fear, distrust, and blame men for their problems. Crucially, it wasn’t just a handful of powerful tycoons being blamed — it was every man.

This conditioned women to view men not as allies or protectors, but as thieves of opportunity and freedom. And once fear and blame is planted, distrust follows. Over time, this distrust breeds resentment, and this can inevitably curdle into hatred.

Manufacturing Fear of Men’s Violence

Next, feminism relentlessly exaggerated the threat of male violence. Even though fewer than a half of 1% of men are convicted of violent crimes, men were collectively painted as dangerous.

Campaigns like “Take Back the Night” suggested that men had made public spaces unsafe. Anti-rape crusades pushed slogans like “All men are potential rapists.” Domestic violence campaigns implied that any woman, at any time, could be in danger from any man — despite data showing domestic violence is most prevalent in lower socio-economic groups and that men are victims too.

The aim was simple: fuel fear and distrust by promoting the idea that all men were potential threats. And history tells us what happens next: fear transforms into resentment, and unchecked resentment leads to hate. The more women were told to see men as unpredictable dangers, the more those emotions hardened.

Demonizing Masculinity Itself

As the fear campaigns intensified, a new weapon emerged: toxic masculinity. Feminists began to redefine traditional masculine traits—such as strength, stoicism, and competitiveness—as inherently harmful. The very qualities that had long been vital for protecting and providing for women and children were suddenly recast as dangerous and pathological.

Imagine the backlash if someone claimed femininity itself was toxic. But the “toxic masculinity” label stuck — widely accepted, even celebrated, in popular culture and media.

What message does this send women? That men, by their very nature, are dangerous. It discourages trust, closeness, and cooperation, and promotes out-group hostility — seeing men as outsiders and threats. Fear escalates, trust deteriorates, and resentment simmers just beneath the surface. Over time, that resentment metastasizes into outright hatred of not just specific men, but masculinity itself.

Reframing Male Help as Oppression

Another tactic was to portray even positive male behavior as suspect. Feminists argued that when men protect or help women, it’s about control and paternalism. Acts of chivalry were repackaged as disguised domination. Gratitude was replaced with skepticism, doubt, and fear.

This seeded doubt in women’s minds: Is his kindness genuine, or does he have an agenda? Over time, this isolated women further and disoriented men who suddenly found their supportive gestures met with suspicion. He found himself living in a world where he simply can't win.

And what follows when goodwill is viewed as manipulation? Fear. Distrust. Resentment. The natural progression plays out yet again: suspicion leads to bitterness, and bitterness makes way for hate.

All the while, traditionally masculine strengths like logic, fairness, and objective reasoning were increasingly dismissed or devalued. In their place, emotional expression and subjective feelings were elevated as the highest forms of truth. Rather than balancing reason and emotion, the cultural shift sidelined men's natural strengths, portraying them as cold, outdated, or even oppressive. The result was a climate where emotional narratives often trumped evidence, and fairness took a backseat to feelings.

Casting Relationships as Power Struggles

Feminists promoted the idea that heterosexual relationships are inherently imbalanced and exploitative. Men, they claimed, were constantly scheming to take women’s resources, power, and autonomy.

This worldview cast suspicion on romantic relationships and encouraged women to view partnerships not as mutual alliances, but as battles for dominance. The feminist cry was all sex is rape!

Once again: fear breeds distrust, which breeds resentment. And when the very idea of love and partnership is painted as a contest of control, hatred isn’t far behind. What should foster connection instead fosters division.

Creating a Media Echo Chamber

The media eagerly amplified these narratives. Stories of men as protectors, supporters, or victims rarely made headlines. Instead, article after article, news segment after news segment, depicted women as victims and men as perpetrators.

This one-sided portrayal conditioned the public to see male violence and male wrongdoing as the norm, while male victimhood was erased. Constant exposure to this selective narrative created a skewed perception of male behavior and fueled generalized fear.

And as with every other step: sustained fear morphs into distrust, distrust into resentment, and resentment into hatred. This is not an accidental outcome — it’s a predictable consequence of systematically vilifying one half of the population.

Spreading the Fear Template Across Issues

Feminism applied its fear-and-blame template to virtually every major social issue, consistently casting men as oppressors and women as victims. This narrative became the default lens through which public policy, media coverage, and cultural norms were shaped.​ Let's have a closer look a some of the issues.

The Domestic Violence Example

Perhaps the clearest example is domestic violence. Feminists claimed men were battering women in alarming numbers, and demanded government action. What they deliberately left out was that men, too, were victims — at comparable rates.

Prominent feminist Ellen Pence, a leader in the domestic violence movement, later admitted:

“In many ways, we turned a blind eye to many women’s use of violence, their drug use and alcoholism, and their often harsh and violent treatment of their own children.”

Yet for years, feminists successfully pushed a one-sided narrative, securing billions in funding for women-only services while erasing male victims.​ Male legislators, eager to prove they weren't the “enemy,” funded a women-only domestic violence industry—one that now commands nearly $5 billion a year in federal and state funding, despite its foundation being built on selective data and misleading claims.​ The result? A culture trained to see men as inherently dangerous and women as always innocent victims.​

And where one group is painted as evil and the other as blameless, fear and distrust fester. Resentment builds. Hate is the inevitable consequence.

Education: Feminists claimed that the patriarchy had systematically cheated girls out of opportunity. Girls were portrayed as emotionally battered by a male-dominated system that ignored their needs. The solution? Re-engineer the educational environment to favor girls—by de-emphasizing competition, downplaying boys’ natural learning styles, and prioritizing emotional safety over academic rigor. The result has been a system where boys now lag behind in graduation rates, college enrollment, and literacy, but no one is rushing to fix it for them.

Reproductive Rights: The conversation was framed as a battle against male control of women’s bodies, summed up by the slogan: “Her body, her choice.” But while women were given full reproductive authority, men were given no rights, no say, and no support. The father's role was reduced to that of a bystander—unless child support was needed. There was no public outcry about this imbalance, only cheers for women's autonomy, and silence about male disenfranchisement.

Healthcare: Feminists claimed women were neglected by a healthcare system designed by and for men. They argued that women were left out of medical research and ​left out of research studies. These claims have since been debunked​. There are eight federal offices for women's health and none for men. Just one of those offices for women got a budget for 2025 for nearly 1.5 billion dollars while men's offices got zero. They have also found that women actually use more healthcare services and live longer than men—but the narrative stuck​, women need and deserve more. Men, meanwhile, still die younger, have fewer resources for gender-specific health issues, and are underrepresented in healthcare outreach. Yet somehow, the blame was again placed on men.

Divorce: Men were portrayed as abusive and emotionally stifling, while women were framed as desperate to escape. No-fault divorce arrived as the silver bullet, allowing women to end marriages unilaterally, often with financial gain and favorable custody arrangements. What kind of contract allows one party to walk away, take the kids, and still profit? It was a seismic power shift that disempowered men—especially fathers—and handed the upper hand to women under the guise of liberation.

Sexual Assault: The narrative became: All men are potential predators. Due process was seen as a barrier to "believing women." The fear-based messaging painted entire groups of men as suspect, regardless of evidence, while encouraging women to view every interaction through the lens of danger.

Pay Gap: Feminists accused men of deliberately underpaying women. Yet Warren Farrell ha​s thoroughly debunked this myth, showing that the so-called “gap” is almost entirely due to life choices—career fields, hours worked, risk tolerance—not discrimination. Still, the blame stuck to men, and the myth continues to be used to justify gender-based policy and hiring practices.

Sexual Harassment: Men were framed as aggressors who silenced and intimidated women in the workplace​. The blanket vilification of men created an atmosphere of suspicion, where normal workplace interactions could be reinterpreted as threats.​ Men’s natural ways of interacting — being competitive, giving blunt feedback, and adopting a “tough it out” mentality — were seen as harmful to women. But instead of encouraging women to adapt to this more demanding environment, the solution was to change the men.

Mansplaining: A new cultural buzzword emerged to shame men for speaking, especially when sharing knowledge. It wasn’t enough to disagree—men were now accused of "stealing women's voices" anytime they offered a perspective.

Manspreading: Even how men sit became political. Men were now “stealing women’s space” by taking up too much room on public transport. Masculine posture was reframed as a public offense.

The Result: A Culture of Fear, Distrust, and Hatred

By repeatedly following the same formula — false accusations, inflated victimhood, vilifying men, and demanding urgent action — feminism has succeeded in making women suspicious, fearful, and distrustful of men.

Women were placed in a difficult bind:

• If you believe the narrative, you must fear men.

• If you believe the narrative, you must distrust men.

• If you believe the narrative, you must resent men.

• If you don’t believe the narrative, you must not be a “real” woman.

With every new manufactured grievance — from mansplaining to domestic violence — the same template was applied.

But fear and distrust don’t operate in a vacuum. Human psychology makes this clear: when people are taught to fear and distrust a group, and are simultaneously conditioned to see themselves as its perpetual victims, resentment takes root. Over time, that resentment hardens — and turns into hatred.

This is one of the most dangerous psychological dynamics in any society. History shows us that when a group is consistently portrayed as a threat — and held collectively responsible for every grievance — the result is always the same: hostility, dehumanization, and eventually outright hatred.

This relentless cycle of fear and blame hasn’t just fostered distrust — it has built a culture steeped in in-group bias, where one group (women) is seen as morally superior and perpetually victimized, while the other (men) is cast as inherently dangerous and unworthy of empathy.

The inevitable result? A rising hatred of men.
A hatred fueled by distorted narratives, reinforced by media echo chambers, and protected by ideological gatekeepers.

This is how fear was manufactured — how, one lie at a time, an entire culture was led to see men not as allies, protectors, or partners, but as threats. And in the process, feminism didn’t just fracture relationships between men and women — it cultivated an atmosphere where distrust breeds resentment, and resentment curdles into hate.

At every turn, this framework of fear and blame has redefined normal male behavior as oppressive. It has warped public perception, silenced men’s voices, and redirected vast social resources toward problems often exaggerated or misrepresented.

The cost?
A growing cultural divide.
The breakdown of the American family and male female relationships.
And a generation of boys and men taught to feel ashamed of their very nature.

Feminism — with its invented victimhood and relentless blame — has become one of the most deceptive and self-serving movements in American history. It's time we start calling it out. And it’s time we return, slowly but surely, to the truth:

Men are good.