Yocom compares the private world in which many women narrators
tell their stories with the public domain and style of male narrators.
And Stone, Kalčik, Langlois, Jordan, Roach, and Jahner also com-
ment on the male world and its relationship with the female world.

Ardener urges us to realize that "we are all lay figures in someone
else's play" ( 1972:153). This idea is common in the study of other
kinds of folklore. Both the editors of this volume, for example, have
worked with ethnic material in which esoteric and exoteric views of
ethnic groups are commonly discussed. It is easy for folklorists to
accept the importance of distinguishing between how one ethnic group
is described by another and how it describes itself, and also between
behavior that is reserved for in-group gatherings and behavior that
predominates at public presentations of group identity. Scholars have
not, however, always applied the same rigor to descriptions of sex
groups. Since the male view has been predominant, it is probably
very difficult for men, even folklorists, to see themselves as women
see them: to see themselves, in Ardener's terms, as actors in a wom-
an's play. Women are more likely to be aware that there are two points
of view, and women's studies have often included men, although from
a perspective that men may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with.

Farrer ( 1975a:viii) points to the need for studies examining "simi-
larities or differences between male and female expressive behavior."
And Weigle urges the reconciliation of male and female models of
verbal art ( 1978:6-7). She suggests that the investigation of women's
genres will lead to new insights into little-studied areas of verbal
performance, such as conversation (ibid.:3-6). Thus the study of
women's folklore, and folklore studies made by women, seem a likely
starting point for enlarging our view of the world, enabling us to
appreciate more fully the complexities of human culture as seen from
multiple perspectives.

-xiv-