This Article begins to rethink current conceptions of two of the most significant legal movements in this country—Legal Realism and Feminist Jurisprudence. The story of Legal Realism has been retold for decades. Authors have dedicated countless books, law review articles, and blog posts to the subject. Legal and other scholars repeatedly have attempted to define better the movement and ascertain its adherents. Although the usual suspects—Karl Llewellyn, Roscoe Pound, and Jerome Frank—are almost always a part of the conversation, surprisingly few agree on the totality of Realism’s personage or parameters. The lists of those considered realists—and there are many—are constantly expanding and contracting. The movement’s teachings and implications are ever-evaluated. In all of this alleged evolution, however, one thing has remained constant: male-centered descriptions of Legal Realism have occupied the center of the discussion.