The mannish dyke at left is my good friend, radical feminist Sheila Gregoire. I met Ms. Gregoire years ago, when I was banned from her pornographic blog, after asking a couple of simple questions. Thus, I’ve always known she was an agenda driven activist, who was given to lecturing on things about which she was underinformed.
I always recognized, in Sheila’s terrible writing, that she was prone to coming to inaccurate conclusions, and formulating unsound arguments. The poor quality of her thought and scholarship did not prepare me for today’s revelation. I am honestly shocked. I now believe she may be a plagiarist.
Let’s examine Sheila’s latest entry, dated 06 July 2018, entitled The Woman in The Bible Who Gets The Worst Rap. Sheila opens with a brief historical overview.
This much is difficult to get wrong, but Sheila still can’t help but stoop to feminist theatrics. Sheila spins the story to make Xerxes into an abusive pimp, rather than a proud husband, who wanted to show off his wife. The more reasonable interpretation is supported by custom and the definition of her name. ‘Vashti’ is an old Indo-Aryan word which means “best,” and the background is that the King’s wife is generally never allowed in public. The king is breaking the rules, in his drunken state, in order that his wife might be known to the people as a beautiful woman.
As Sheila explains, Vashti is a loud and proud skank-ho feminist, who don’t need no man. She revels in public displays of disrespect, especially toward the man who has given her the honorable titles of “wife,” and “queen.” She thus refuses to appear when summoned, and makes a big dramatic spectacle out of embarrassing her husband.
If we saw a photograph of Vashti, she’d probably be posing in a defiant stance, breasts taped down, sporting a butch dyke hairdo — with the tattered remnants of hair dyed various unnatural colors — just like Sheila.
Sheila forwards the assumption that the Hebrew God would approve of Vashti’s feminism. Sheila has to take this position, because if she doesn’t, her own disrespect toward her husband will be condemned by proxy.
There is no evidence, in Jewish history or mythology, that the Hebrew God would have cared about Vashti. The Hebrew God, before St. Paul, was a tribal God, much like Elohim is to Mormons. The rules the Hebrew God gave were not meant for outsiders.
Sheila’s article goes further than a simple inversion of the text. Sheila has made several arguments at this point, which are all identical to those made by better feminist thinkers, who came long before her. For example, Harriet Beecher Stowe inverts the meaning of the text, in precisely the same way:
(Harriet Beecher Stowe, Bible Heroines of The Patriarchal Eras. New York: Fords, Howard and Hulbert, 1878. §12.)
Elizabeth Cady Stanton also lionized Vashti, and she went on to explain that Vashti was making a stand against “objectification,” just like Sheila is spinning it.
(Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman’s Bible: A Feminist Perspective. Mineola: Dover, 2002. p.86.)
I suspect Sheila has become so bored that she is now stealing the arguments and ideas of better thinkers, hastily repackaging them for her dull-witted audience.
Some time ago, I created a meme which compared Sheila with a donkey. Thanks to my brother Jason, my eyes have been opened to the unfairness of trading on such cheap imagery.
Donkey does her best, from day to day, to be the best donkey that she can be. Donkey doesn’t steal the work of others, to pass off as her own. Donkey doesn’t dye her fur unnatural colors, or shave her lovely mane. Donkey comes when she is called, and cheerfully cleans up her own messes. Donkey is not a skank-ho feminist. For all these reasons, I now humbly apologize to donkey, and beg her forgiveness, for comparing her with Sheila Gregoire.
caveat lector!
Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s statement here:
Vashti, who scorned the Apostle’s [Paul, or perhaps Peter] command, “Wives, obey your husbands.”
is absurd and nonsensical. Vashti’s life predated the Apostles and Paul by at least 1,000 years. Vashti couldn’t have dreamed of the apostolic writings.
I posted this video on Dalrock’s but I think it’s important for the young men to realize what they are up against with these women who are either steeped in feminism or outright witchcraft. But it seems Shelia’s fruits are clear.
The Problem With Mother Goddess Worship
Apologizing to the donkey. Nice.
Plus, the donkey isn’t bad looking, for a donkey.
‘I suspect Sheila has become so bored that she is now stealing the arguments and ideas of better thinkers, hastily repackaging them for her dull-witted audience.’
Possible…or if I could present an alternate viewpoint, this is just how all feminist hivemind think. They all take the stance of the rebellious woman and thus come to the same conclusions.
If there’s a story in the Bible where some wimminz is rebellious or emasculating to their husband, rest assured all feminists will point this out as a good thing. I wonder when they will dig into the ‘virtues’ of Jezebel.
The Woman’s Bible. OF COURSE there’s a Woman’s Bible! Why has it taken me so long to learn this?
Boxer solves all feminist church lady’s problems in one fell swoop with this find. No more hunting and pecking through various bible translations looking for just the right slant, or easily modified text to rationalize a needed divergence from the dusty old originals.
The WBT version. I don’t know why Sheila and all her celebrity feminist church lady peers don’t just go straight there for the most useful quotes. Is it possible they also don’t know it’s available?
“Feminism is the Real Enslavement of Women”
Abridged from Caldwell’s prescient 1970 classic “Women’s Lib: They’re Spoiling Eve’s Great Con Game.”
By Taylor Caldwell (1900-1985)
https://www.henrymakow.com/feminism_spoiled_natures_great.html
Funny that the section about the Playboy is pretty much the same things Boxer has said…
‘When she went to the “powder room” I said to my sophisticated, progressive, and with-it young pal: “Are you going to marry Sally soon?” He looked absolutely shocked! Suddenly the primitive man was there and not a “modern” man in a dinner jacket and black tie, in a Key Club with bunnies running around and the smell of winey cooking in the air. He was aghast.
He said “Excuse me, but you can’t be serious, can you? Sally’s all right. But, after all, she is a modern girl — she likes a romp as well as I do. No inhibition.” He paused. Then he said, “Playmates for play-time. But only maidens for marriage!” And he laughed.
When I still stared at him cynically, he got a little mad. “Let’s face it,” he said. “The liberated girls have made their own public bed, and they can lie in it, and we men love it. but if they think we are going to marry them, they’re due for an awakening. No man wants a woman who’s been out on the town with every Tom, Dick, and Harry. When we marry, we don’t want a ‘modern’ woman.” He laughed again. “Oh, we encourage the women to be ‘liberated’! It’s cheap for us, and we get all the free sex we want before we settle down with a decent girl.”
Problem with that logic is if you encourage women to be liberated…the pool of decent girls keeps going down.
Hence we need to get back to encouragement of women to submit to God and their father and then eventual husband. The liberated woman rebels against all of these men.