In the Journal of Moral Education, Sherblom (2008) examined several empirical and conceptual claims related to gender and morality and re-envisioned the legacy of Gilligan's 'care challenge'. He concluded that the moral and scientific legitimacy of the ethic of care has been established. However, his apologetic is flawed in major ways and scholarly integrity demands a rebuttal. This article exposes how Sherblom's analysis misconstrues some of the empirical claims, fails to present relevant data, entails an incomplete reading of Kohlberg's theory, imputes an impact on moral/character education that is unwarranted, disregards some significant problems in the conceptualisation of the ethic of care and draws conclusions that are indefensible. The primary claims of the care perspective have generally been discredited and Sherblom's attempt to advance its legacy fails. The time has come to move beyond these notions of a gendered moral psychology.