Response to Commentators on Existential Flourishing

ABSTRACT

In this piece I respond to questions and criticisms raised by commentators on my recent book, Existential Flourishing: A Phenomenology of the Virtues (Cambridge University Press, 2019). I argue for an irreducible normative plurality governing our struggle to lead good human lives, and address questions about how to decide what to do in the face of such plurality.     

Status, Personality, and Gender Stereotyping: Response to Commentators

Status differences between women and men can explain why they perceive themselves as having different personality traits. The status explanation of gender stereotyping is discussed in relation to two views that have shaped research and theory on gender and personality: the traditional view that men and women are characterized by stable, enduring dispositions and the more recent view that women’s and men’s self-perceived traits vary from one situation to another. Other issues include: status in relation to developmental issues and cross-cultural stereotypes, effect of gender identity on gender stereotyped behaviors and traits, and changes in gender stereotyped traits over time within the larger sociocultural context. Differences between the status explanation of gender stereotyping and personality and the view that gender is the central, determining factor are discussed.     

More on the Gendered Division of Household Labor: A Response to Commentators

This article is a response to the commentaries made regarding our original article (Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard 2010), which reviewed the state of research on the division of household labor and summarized the main theoretical perspectives used to explain why women continue to complete the larger share of household tasks. In the following pages, we underline how the commentators were helpful in identifying some limitations of the current research on the allocation of household labor and in suggesting relevant paths for future studies. We discuss points on which the commentators agree, such as the need to achieve a better understanding of all forms of inequalities, and points on which they disagree, such as the way researchers should proceed when studying the impact of national context. We also reply to each individual commentary. In response to Coltrane (2010), we discuss the causal loops that exist between gender inequalities in the private and public spheres. We agree with Davis (2010) who proposed that studying the question from other angles could help understand why household labor continues to be divided along gendered lines. We add to Claffey and Manning’s discussion (2010) of the paradox which stems from the fact that couples often perceive an objectively unequal division of household labor as fair to both partners. In conclusion, we take the opportunity to address additional issues related to the division of household labor. For instance, from a clinical psychology standpoint, we discuss how couples who strive to achieve a more egalitarian division of household labor do so.     

Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate Partner Violence: Response to Commentators

In this response, I raise additional concerns related to controversies about gender and intimate partner violence (IPV). First, I argue that focusing on the dynamics of bi-directionally violent couples will enhance our ability to prevent a large quantity of IPV. Second, while directing resources toward those most impacted by IPV (i.e., women, children) is essential; pre-determining that women are always the appropriate victims is sexist and detrimental to prevention efforts. Third, although I offered a typology of bi-directionally violent couples, most of the factors associated with IPV (i.e., attachment, perceived control, fear, anger) and, most aspects of IPV, are dimensional constructs occurring in a society in which women’s roles are fluid. Making sense of this complexity poses a continued challenge.     

The Spirituality of Compassion: A Public Health Response to Ageing and End-of-Life Care

SUMMARY

The recent revival of interest in spirituality in later life marks a significant step forward in the person-centred care of ageing people. The benefits will, however, be of limited value if we do not attend to the settings in which spirituality is to be lived. In contemporary society many aged people are located in environments unsympathetic to spiritual belief and practice. Health care settings focus on professionally-assessed physical needs and are dominated by concerns about the cost of services. The national social policies that direct health care services and less directly shape older people's place in contemporary society are strongly influenced by globalised neoliberal economic policies characterised by individualism, competition, and greed. For robust and viable spirituality to develop at the individual level we need compassionate social policies that support interdependence within communities and between nations.     

We Agree: Fat IS a Feminist Issue! Response to Commentators

In our review of the literature on women and weight bias (Fikkan and Rothblum 2011), we attempted to cull findings from multiple disciplines that demonstrate the impact (social, educational, and financial) of the stigma of women’s weight. We undertook this for two purposes: the first was to address a gap in the weight bias literature, which tends to make only a side note mention that fat women suffer worse penalties than do fat men; the second, to raise the point that feminist scholars, though highly attuned to pressures on women to be thin, have spent less time discussing the disparate impact for women of being fat, despite the mounting evidence of how much weight bias impacts women. We offered some of our own thoughts on the persisting neglect of this topic among feminist writers, despite previous calls to action (Rothblum 1992, 1994). Given the dearth of attention to what has become one of the most frequent types of discrimination against women (Puhl et al. 2008), we asked: “is fat a feminist issue?” We were delighted with the response from the commentators and the thoughtful exploration they devoted to our question and to this issue within feminist scholarship. Here, we briefly summarize some of the main themes identified by these writers, offer our own thoughts on these themes and repeat their call to action for further study of this important area of women’s lives.     

Developing the Horizons of the Mind: Reich's Response to the Commentators

Some aspects of my writing the monograph Developing the Horizons of the Mind (2002) are highlighted, the central characteristics of relational and contextual reasoning (RCR) are explained, and the contributions to this symposium by John Albright, Varadaraja V. Raman, and John Teske are discussed.