"Who or what the other is, I never know. But this unknowable other is that which differs sexually from me. This feelong of wonder, surprise and astonishment in the face of the unknowable ought to be returned to its proper place: the realm of sexual difference."
-Luce Irigaray (238)

"A phantasmatical mingling of men, of males, of messieurs, of monarchs, princes, orphans, flowers, mothers, breasts, gravitates around a marvelous 'sun of energy' love, which bombards and disintegrates these ephemeral amorous singularities so that they may recompose themselves in other bodies for new passions."
-Helene Cixous (235)

It is here that we find a new breed, gender studies. Irigaray and Cixous both look towards a disentanglement of our concepts and perceptions of culture, and revolutionize our thinking to bring about a more enlightened and equal approach to gender. However, unlike the Feminists, these writers concern themselves not with attacking the patriarchal society or installing a more gynocentric, Amazonian world. Irigary and Cixous want to return us to a natural state of a melded and mixed masculine and feminine, where neither is subject to the other or an object of the other.
Cixous goes as far to say that there is no creation or invention without a fair measure of homosexuality. Those who have been inventive have embraced their whole selves, both masculine and feminine aspects. Ingaray writes of the wonder of both sexes, and hopes that the sexes can approach one another with a constantly fresh perspective, although acknowledges that that has never happened, there is always a residual reaction.
There is certainly common ground between these writers and the feminist writers. The idea of the phallocentrism and its harm exist. Both movements see the masculine domination of society and culture as the biggest problem to face, necessitating a cultural and cognitive revolution to be corrected. However, feminism doesn't propose that masculinity is just as harmed by phallocentrism as femininity is, whereas Cixous explicitly states that phallocentrism is the enemy of men and women alike.
So what does these incredibly dense, cryptic essays seek? I think, as I said above, to change the playing field, embracing both sexes and all genders (yes, there are more than two). Whether in terms of sexual pleasure, passion, or freedom, the idea here is to "disintegrate these ephemeral amorous singularities," and change the way we look at everything.