At the risk of oversimplifying, I would say that Moi is positing a difference between the Anglo-American and the French "schools" of feminism based on her view that the latter are more "theoretically" oriented. For instance, Moi criticizes Elaine Showalter's analysis of Virginia Woolf, in which Showalter claims that as a member of the upper class, Woolf could not have understood the unfairness of the male-dominated system against ordinary women. In other words (according to Moi), Showalter believes feminist writing must be based on direct personal experience. Moi disagrees with this view. Her implication, as I understand it, is that this type of feminism is too limited, too concrete, and lacking the theoretical underpinnings it requires. Such are the features of the Anglo-American school, which correspond to the reference, in your question, to the reduction or the limiting of valid feminist literature to "realist autobiography."
The seminal figure of French feminism, on the other side of this divide, is Simone de Beauvoir. In a lecture given recently, Moi observed that in the 1970s the Larousse Encyclopedia described de Beauvoir as "femme de lettres, disciple de Sartre." Though she regards this as a sign of the sexism of the times, in which de Beauvoir had to be described as a mere disciple of a man, perhaps the more important point is that de Beauvoir, in her link with Sartre, was a philosopher herself and provided feminism with a theoretical/philosophical basis to an extent which the Anglo-American feminists did not (in Moi's view). It is ironic, in this connection, that Kate Millett, widely considered a seminal figure in second-wave feminism—and discussed by Moi as a chief representative of Anglo-American feminism—is considered to have been influenced largely by de Beauvoir in her (Millett's) Sexual Politics.