000ooo000ooo Cixous

I had a very difficult time understanding what Cixous was getting at. She seemed to go back and forth between a few paradoxical ideas. She begins with her idea of woman as bisexual. For Cixous, bisexual means accepting both sexes within oneself. It is not a meshing of two different sexes into an asexual being, but the coming out of two separate sexes. She claims that only woman is able to do this because man could never accept any part of woman in him. One of the biggest problems I have with this idea is that throughout the entire essay, she never mentions any good traits of "masculinity". Why would woman want both sexes if one of them was so defficient? Another problem I have is Cixous' perpetuation of binary oppositions. Although she is changing them from their culturally accepted forms, she still creates oppositions and generalized differences. Barthes, Althusser, and Derrida have all warned us of the dangers and fallacies behind binary oppositions. Even Cixous seems to deny their legitimacy at the beginning of her piece. However, I read her piece as having many of these oppositions within it.
She is constantly referring to "we" (women) and "them" (men). I don't think this split needs to exist and I don't think she is going to help society progress by pressing this split. One example of this can be found on page 164. Cixous explains a womans voice by saying: "And that is how she writes, as one throws a voice - forward, into the void. She goes away, she goes forward, doesn't turn back to look at her tracks. Pays no attention to herself. Running breakneck. Contrary to the self-absorbed, masculine narcissism, making sure of its image, of being seen, of seeing itself, of assembling its glories, pocketing itself again.... he needs to love himself. But she launches forth; seeks to love." If Cixous was writing in terms of just "masculine" and "feminine" I would be okay with such pointed generalizations. However, she uses masculinity and femininity synonymously with man/woman, he/she, and other words that imply a biological difference instead of a social construction. Cixous is making generalizations and separating men and women on a biological basis that I don't think she has the right to do. Many men can write just as selflessly as many women - neither is any more adept at this than the other.
I do not mean to sound like I don't believe any of what Cixous is saying, or that she doesn't have numerous valid points and an important message as a whole. However, I think that too many of her passages are too generalized and debatable, without any real world evidence to back them up, to sway anyone's opinion that didn't already agree with her. For example on page 162 she writes: "Listen to woman speak in a gathering (if she is not painfully out of breathe): she doesn't 'speak,' she throws her trembling body into the air, she lets herself go, she flies, she goes completely into her voice, she vitally defends the 'logic' of her discourse with her body; her flesh speaks true." This is a beautifully vivid and description of a woman talking in public. However, I have heard numerous females speaking in public and they don't all bring this image to my head. For every female speaker who can inspire you with what she says, there will inevitably be one who makes you fall asleep. The same holds true for male speakers.