I'd add Yael and Judith to the list, incidentally - who also use sexuality, yes, but again in proactive, patriotic ways. I think the major distinction I'm drawing is between women who are active and those who are reactive - although the question of textual reaction to the acts of these women is certainly important, you're right. So what frustrates me about Esther is that I feel like she is shown acting out of personal fear, rather than selfless patriotism or devotion to others, and then she's really brutal to Haman and his family.

Regarding the joke issue - interesting. Coming from the perspective of someone who studies strongly misogynistic cultures, this sounded like a reiteration of basic patriarchal principles; the King is reasserting his and all husbands' authority, because Vashti has challenged it. He's just demonstrated his control by punishing her so strongly for her act of defiance.

You seem to want to separate "feminism" from "use of female sexuality," which I find intriguing here. I would argue that any ancient text which shows a woman as a clever, independent agent acting in pursuit of praiseworthy goals is feminist, because it does not (like most ancient texts) reduce women to property or male appendages. The primary tools available to women in the ancient world were their sexuality and their familial connections; I don't criticize them or see it as unfeminist when they use those successfully. How else exactly is Yael supposed to get close enough to Sisera to kill him? To view it otherwise suggests that women are only capable of virtuous acts when asexual or when "acting like men."