I think it’s worth considering as well as what others have said, that there is a “misanthropic” (realist) thread in the dhamma, and misanthropy naturally looks like misogyny when applied to women.
It is said that most beings are headed downwards (SN 56.102). It is said most beings are blinded by defilements, taints, poisons. We originate in endless ignorance. Humans are typically so intoxicated with sexuality that if we had another equal drive enlightenment would be impossible. People mostly act like animals or worse, and will be reborn as animals or worse.
There’s a few suttas that address men particularly, calling out, for example, male kings as intoxicated with power, driven by lust for conquest, etc. But even the gender neutral suttas, if you rewrote them to be gender specific, would come across as quite misandrist/misogynist.
It makes sense to me, that if someone saw the flaws in humanity, and was asked about both men and women, they’d tell the truth about both, but the men would be more successful in censoring the record, and what would be passed down through the generations would be biased through this process.
I’m hesitant to endorse that sutta as written. But if I replaced the word “female” with “man” it seems fair to me. My major issue with the version we have is mostly with how it hits differently in the context of our society with its history of structural sexism. But that’s a problem with our society, not necessarily with the sutta.
IME, when someone says something negative or limiting about women or even sometimes a woman, I’m immediately put on alert to wonder if this a signal that they’re a social regressive and want to drag society back to the Victorian era. Most people are aware of this concern, and when they have to say something alarmingly negative about women / a woman, will proactively disclaim sexism - “Women are on average slower than men over short distances - but girls’ track and field is just as important as boys’. My boss is being completely unreasonable - I understand it’s hard for women in leadership positions, but [X objectively bad thing she did].” When such disclaimers are absent in modern speech, it’s a choice, and may reflect socially regressive views. It may be a social regressive’s attempt to dip their toe in the water before coming out with the calls for the re-establishment of Victorian social norms. There’s a little dance people do where they make a tepid statement without a proactive disclaimer of sexism, then if prompted will give a reactive disclaimer to maintain social acceptability, and if not prompted will proclaim some sexist views. This dynamic is totally absent from speech about men or a man, because there is no recent history of men being “forced in the kitchen” or political parties trying to “force men in the kitchen”. If someone says “men are on average worse than women at ultra-endurance sports” I just take that statement for what it is, without worrying they’re trying to lay the ground work for an argument to defund boy’s athletic programs or anything like that, because there’s no history of that happening or political parties advocating for that.
We can’t expect old texts to anticipate our sensitivities and proactively disclaim them. When the Buddha discusses women, there’s no subtext of advocating for Victorian gender norms. There can’t be, because the Victorian era hadn’t happened yet.
In the context of the 16 Great States, a very early stage of political development, I don’t think it makes sense to interpret this sutta along the lines of “women are bad, therefor we should pass laws stripping them of their rights” but rather, “women (just like men) are mostly going to hell. Three causes of this are adultery, divisive speech, and lust. Therefor, because women love themselves and seek their own benefit (just like men), women, to avoid hell, should practice right speech and right action (just like men).”
I think the only hint in the Suttas of the politicization of women’s rights concern Ambapālī, where the narrative is strikingly favorable to this independently wealthy woman, crediting her with much of Vesali’s success, and discussing other states’ attempting to imitate this by elevating such a woman inside their own state.