Denmark and Segovich's (2012), Hyde's (2012), and Marecek's (2012) reflections on the authors' article (Else-Quest & Grabe, 2012) further bolster the need for feminist psychology to investigate gender disparities in power. The authors offer a rejoinder that draws together the commonalities in their various perspectives by putting the study of structural power in a larger context. Echoing their call that "the political is personal," Denmark and Segovich suggest that it is critical to "reduce upward" and consider the importance of country and culture in the psychology of women. Collaborative relationships with the United Nations can be effective in this process. Like Hyde, the authors share a concern that analyses using macro-level gender equity indicators in psychology be planned and interpreted carefully; indeed, this concern motivated their writing. They are well advised by Marecek that if their aims as researchers are to generate a richer understanding of gender subjectivities and gender relations, they should design approaches that are culturally appropriate and conducted in partnership with the women for whom the work most readily applies. In this article, the authors offer three primary considerations that may help guard against the potential Western psychology to further legitimize structures of domination. (Contains 1 note.)