Kristeva's External versus Internal Revolt

The difference in the two revolts that Kristeva discusses seems to center around who is the recipient of the "revolt." In the old way of revolting, it was directed towards the external, which often manifested itself as a political or social challenging of " pre-established norms, values, and powers" (3). In the new revolt, Kristeva argues that the recipient is actually internal, a reflection almost philosophical in nature that seeks to restore the humanity and balance within the mind amiss the chaos, complexity, and white noise of the modern world. Kristeva seems to make the point that this new type of revolt is almost necessary and never ending:  "Today, mental life knows that it will only be saved if it gives itself the time and space of revolt: to break, to remember, to re-do. From prayer to dialogue, through art and analysis, the crucial event is always the great infinitesimal emancipation: to recommence endlessly. Without it, all that globalization would have to do is to calculate growth rates and genetic probabilities. Truths, including scientific ones, may well be illusions, but they have the future in front of them. In contrast with certainties and beliefs, permanent revolt is this questioning of the self, of everything and of nothingness, which no longer seems to have any place to occur" (3). Kristeva ties into this discussion the notion of femininity, arguing that it is the exact characteristics of femaleness that will allow the second type of revolt to take place sucessfully: "the female world allows me to suggest an alternative to a robotizing and spectacular society that damages the culture of revolt: this alternative is, quite simply, sensible intimacy. Possessing their passions and sensibilities, some human beings nonetheless continue to ask themselves questions. I am convinced that, after all the more or less promising projects and slogans that were launched by feminist movements in the seventies, the arrival of women on the front of the moral and social stage will have the effect of revalorizing sensible experience, as an antidote to technical calculation" (4). While I understand what she is trying to convey here, I take a little bit of an issue in that she is supporting the emotion/reason gender binary. I don't think what she is saying is necessarily untrue for many women, but I think to make it a woman's duty to bring intimacy back to culture is to label all women as wanting the same desires and reinforce Decartes' theory that women are meant to "safe keep" men's emotions while they access the public domain through their reason.