Why don't we write feminist criticism like in the old days?

[valancy_s]

"Woman can never be defined. Bat, dog, chick, mutton, tart. Queen, madam, lady of pleasure. MISTRESS. Belle-de-nuit, woman of the streets, fruit woman, fallen woman. Cow, vixen, bitch. Call girl, joy girl, working girl. Lady and whore are both bred to please. The old Woman image-repertoire says She is a Womb, a mere baby’s pouch or ‘nothing but sexuality.’ She is a passive substance, a parasite, an enigma whose mystery proves to be a snare and a delusion. She wallows in night, disorder, immanence and is at the same time the ‘disturbing factor (between men)’ and the key to the beyond. The further the repertoire unfolds its images, the more entangled it gets in its attempts at capturing Her. ‘Truth, Beauty, Poetry-she is All: once more all under the form of the Other. All except herself,’ Simone de Beauvoir wrote. Yet, even with or because of Her capacity to embody All, Woman is the lesser man, and among male athletes, to be called a woman is still resented as the worst of insults. 'Wo-' appended to 'man' in sexist contexts is not unlike 'Third World,' 'Third,' 'Minority' or 'Color' affixed to woman in pseudo-feminist contexts. Yearning for universality, the generic woman, like its counterpart, the generic man, tends to efface difference within itself. Not every female is ‘a real woman,’ one knows this through hearsay … Just as 'man' provides an example of how the part played by women has been ignored, undervalued, distorted or omitted through the use of terminology presumed to be generic, woman more often than not reflects the subtle power of linguistic exclusion."
- Woman, Native, Other by Trinh T. Minh-ha (1989)