They represent the lofty and ideological versions of men and women. Seldom are real men and women the same as the ideological category they occupy. These are the kinds of assumptions, I think, feminism intends to question, not stimulate and reify. My weariness of reifying over generalization seeks direction in works such as Cixous. Not aligning herself with feminism, Cixous is primarily a writer who writes the naked world to avoid dead categories in favor of live words.
Generalizations require careful usage.
The construction of ideals seem to create problems of escaping the expectations assigned to one through occupying a category that doesn't suit them anyway. It seems absurd that feminism is at times serious about sticking to these categories in a kind of hierarchical slippage that privileges women over men and dreams of enjoying the upscale half of domination. In my own thinking and speaking, I am at times haunted by this conundrum. This speaking requires ownership of individual experience but it also requires carefulness so that the experiences of others are not categorized and packaged in false generalities. Speaking requires open listening.