The philosophers discussed in this volume are exemplars of going “beyond comparison” and we think this captures a certain spirit of Ru. Incumbent upon this understanding is the notion that traditionally effective ideas are dynamic and continually evolve. Similar to Rosenlee, Sydney Morrow explores how we can philosophize about gender based on the work of Roger Ames. The work of these scholars is not only insightful, but also challenges us to break new ground on their shoulders. Morrow argues for letting the Confucian tradition speak on its own terms, including their sometimes heavily gendered vocabulary. However, we do not need to limit our understanding of it to some rigid, codified, and binary traditional interpretations. Working with Ames we can practice a more fluid, open, and contemporary Confucian engagement with gender that can be responsive and empathetic. Summarizing her view Morrow writes: “Confucian roles are best left gendered because they make space for women’s self-cultivation beyond their traditionally subservient, nei, and morally-undefined roles. Still, the way in which they are optimally gendered need not draw hard lines between masculine and feminine roles.”