In-group favoritism is not gendered but out-group hostility is

Evidence

Keeping the distinction between out-group negativity and in-group favoritism in mind (see Brewer, 1979, 2007), our argument is not that in-group bias or in-group favoritism is gendered, but rather that it is out-group hostility and aggression that will tend to be gendered (see also Brown & Smith, 1989; Khan & Lambert, 1998; Rudman & Goodwin, 2004). That is, in addition to the evolutionary reasoning reviewed above, there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that men display greater outgroup hostility, xenophobia, derogation, and aggression than do women. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1234

Whereas social categorization can initiate intergroup biases, the type of bias due largely to categorization alone primarily represents a pro-ingroup orientation (i.e., preference for ingroup members, or love-prejudice in Allport’s words, rather than an anti-outgroup orientation, i.e., hateprejudice) usually associated with hostility or aggression. Nevertheless, disadvantaged status due to preferential treatment of one group over another can be as pernicious as discrimination based on anti-outgroup orientations. As Allport suggested, love-prejudice can provide a foundation for generating hostility and conflict that can result from intergroup competition for economic resources and political power (see also Esses, Jackson, Dovidio, & Hodson, ch. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 555

Categorization

• XREF: Complexifies the prejudice-psychology frame of the Allport reassessment: distinguishes out-group negativity from in-group favoritism as separable cognitive mechanisms, relevant to how Islamophobia/antisemitism claims get mobilized.
• DEFINE: Draws a clean theoretical line between in-group favoritism (not gendered) and out-group hostility (gendered), a concept split useful for mechanism-level work.
• SEED: Angle for an essay: institutions justify exclusion as ‘preference’ rather than ‘prejudice’ — belongingness as a harm mechanism that never looks like bigotry from inside.
• corroborated: 6 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1234; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 555