कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Consider shatAvadhAnI-gaNesha’s commentary on the role of women in ancient India (esp. compared with contempraneous societies elsewhere). Also see examples here.

Lower from ritual and mokSha perspective

Womanhood as a lower status birth (hindu society was patriarchal, as in other contemporary societies)
At a ritual and social (rather than family) level, there is no doubt that status of women was lower.
- women and shUdra-s are considered by some, barring exempt pUja-s, to be ineligible for saying paurANika mantra-s - japa-s and homa-s are to be conducted through a brAhmaNa [DS78]. Agama-s widen this adhikAra.

the bhagavadgItA pApayoni (lowly birth / birth resulting [ultimately] from paapa-s/ sins) trope
Restricted reference to strI shUdra vaishya pApayonis in contrast with brAhmaNas and rAjarShi-s is for rhetorical effect when talking to kShatriya arjuna. [YT]
taittIriya-shAkhA says: “even women with superior knowledge are in effect males, and vice versa.” [YT].
madhva did not say that all strI-s are pApa-yonis - shankara did, as we see below - rAmAnuja did. [IMG] Though madhva did not comment on the shloka in question, the mAdhva tradition [nAgendrAchAryaYT] seems to be clear who pApayoni-s are - unfortunate beings who suffer daily - for example those being born in the wrong gendered body.
The shloka and commentary by rAmAnuja more or less literally states: “strI-s, shUdras and vaishyas, even (if they are) pApayoni-s can reach me”. Some take it to mean that all strI-s, shUdra-s and vaishya-s are pApayoni-s. (But note: ANDAl the incarnation of lakShmI in rAmAnuja’s tradition was a woman.) [IMG]
The late Dr. N.S. Anantharangachar commenting on rAmAnuja’s shrIbhAShya takes it to mean that all strI-s are refererred to as pApayoni-s [IMG1 IMG2 IMG3 ]. (This is supported by gItArthasangraha(raxA) of vedAnta-deshika. [Anantharangachar’s son: YT])