Thank you for the thorough answer!
Really, every time when I see in EBT something which does not go with the general ethical flow, there usually is a perfectly good explanation.
It’s just that some people lack the impulse to search for this explanation. You can just say “Oh, well, the Buddha said that the women are horrible - let’s try to find out why the women are horrible!”. Or you can decide: “Buddha couldn’t have said that, so let’s find out if the sutta is corrupted or translated wrongly”.
this may be a product of pali’s lack of a definite state article.
in the buddha’s time there were two(?) particular nuns who were problematic, for whom a large number of rules were specifically laid down after their misbehaviour (i think the main offender was a nun called thullananda)
they were devoted to ananda, to the extent they insulted maha kassapa who was ananda’s senior and an arahant.
i think it’s likely that this was said if those nuns in particular - in this sutta ananda is asking the buddha why these certain nuns don’t get sent on missionary work and don’t come to the meeting of the sangha - it is because they (those specific women) are exactly as the buddha describes them.
he’s not saying “all females are …”
rather he’s saying “these specific females are …”
translators can influence the way this verse is perceived by translating it (poorly, i think) as “females are …” / “women are …” or (better) as “the females” (or if appropriate “those females …” or “the female ascetics …”)
we can always start from the position that the buddha is never misogynistic. it’s our misinterpretation and our own modern prejudices. i’ve personally never found a true instance of this, but have found plenty of misinterpretation.
