Are women low-born?
an interpretation that does absolute harm than any good.
Paapayoni means low-born or one born as a result of sin. Our society as always, by it’s own misogyny, twisted both the word and the verse it appears in until it started to fit their comfort, convenience, and illusion.
Most people might not even know such-such word exists. But, specific individuals and groups online constantly propagate the wrong interpretation of the verse it appears in.
On one side are pro-Hindu accounts, self-proclaimed traditionalists, and right-wing pages that use it, sometimes literally, sometimes “humorously” to assert dominance, spread hatred, or simply indulge in fantasies of male-superiority.
When questioned, they cherry-pick comments, posts, statements, conversations or behavior from internet feminists, female celebrities, or sometimes just random teenage girls to justify their misogyny.
“Oh, I don’t hate women. They’re just actually simply dumb. Look at this 12-year-old girl reading romance novels as if that stuff really exists. LMAO.”
Yeah.
On the other hand we are gifted with those who use the very same misinterpretation to argue that Hinduism itself is inherently misogynistic. Whether they’re universalists claiming that no religion can be feminist, atheists who criticize all religions equally or not, or people who are simply hateful toward Hinduism. Different accounts, same (mis)interpretation.
I haven’t read the Manusmriti, so I can’t and won’t comment on it, but I have read The Gita.
People often quote Bhagavad Gita 9.32, where Krishna says that anyone who takes refuge in Him—even those considered of low-birth (papa-yonayah)—such as women, merchants, and workers, can attain the supreme spiritual destination.
Raging at first glance? Absolutely.
But read the verse in context.
Krishna isn’t calling women low-born. He’s addressing the prejudices of the society around Him/Us.
He is not saying, “Women are low-born.”
He is saying, “Even those whom the society consider/thought low-born are fully eligible for moksha.”
That context changes everything.
The reassurance itself abolishes the prejudice, as the prejudice exists in context of the assumed ineligibility of women for moksha, there would be no reassurance to make if women were said to be inherently ineligible. The verse tells us that, our birth does not decides our end.
So to the pro-Hindu accounts that still insist women are somehow low-born, I have one question.
Why?
Other than hatred, insecurity, or the temporary satisfaction of feeling superior, what reasons do you have?
Why cling to a lie that doesn’t just harm women but also mis-represents your own faith?
What makes a woman low-born?
Her suffering?
Her sacrifices?
The discomfort she has to live with?
The things she must endure long before she even understands why she has to endure them?
What makes a woman low-born?
What makes a girl a sinner?
Is it the fact that she has to fight for dignity from the day she is born until the day she dies, and even after, so that men do not violate her corpse?
What are her sins?
And what makes a man so unquestionably superior?
And if being born a man is supposedly the reward for virtue, why are so many of them ashamed of associating with other members of their own gender?
If women are supposedly born out of sin, then who are those men who raped a woman with an iron rod until her organs spilled out?
The husband who burned his own wife for some digits on a green paper?
The boys who tortured a girl so brutally that her brain shrank?
The father who left his kid so wounded they try to find his image in everything and everywhere?
The man who sexualize a 12-year-old before she even understands what they’re saying?
The men who cut a woman in half with a mechanical saw?
The women who’s face melted with acid cause of a man?
or
The man who raped and crushed a 5 year old to death with a rock?
What makes a man superior, and a woman so inferior?
and if being born a woman is supposedly the result of sin(s), then what birth awaits men?
Excellent. It is vital to correct these interpretations to ensure our daughters feel no less and reject their culture out of frustration or belittling.
As far as I know gender is decided based on last thoughts at the time of death in previous birth, not based on sin.
Srimad Bhagavatam (4.28.19)
“Whatever state of mind or form an individual contemplates upon while leaving the physical body, they attain that very state in the next life, because of being constantly absorbed in those thoughts.”
Context of the Verse:
In this narrative, King Puranjana is intensely attached to his wife and holds her in his mind at the precise moment of his death. The text explains that because his consciousness was entirely absorbed in the thoughts of a woman, his subtle body carried that impression forward, resulting in his rebirth as Vaidarbhi, the daughter of the King of Vidarbha.
Also, you might find the below part related to your topic :
"Is there any vice men have not accused women of? Those who reject women do so out of blind stubbornness. According to Manu, women possess more virtues than men."
- written by 6th Century, Hindu male Acharya, Varahamihira ji in his book Brihat Samhita whose 74th chapter is named as “Praise of Women”