Rationalstic and philosophical rabbis more negative to women than kabbalists or mystics

 Avraham Grossman (Pious and Rebellious page 30) the negative bias towards women  found in Jewish philosophical writings from Spain and southern France  in particular the 14^th century is a separate topic … There was reason to anticipate , that philosophically inclined people and rationalists would be more favorably inclined in their attitude to women, but the reality is absolutely different In fact the attitude of the mystics and Kabbalists in Spain and the Pietists in Germany France was much more favorable than the philosophers. For example the Ralbag in his commentary to the Torah….

Ralbag (Bereishis 2:21) : An Adam called the name of his wife Chava when he realized the weakness of her intellect i.e. it didn’t rise to a level that was not much greater than other animals. So- even though she did in fact have a mind it was primarily used for material issues because it was weak and because she was meant to serve man and therefore it was highly unlikely that she would have a fully developed mind. Even so she was more worthy of man than the animals who were also to serve her. This was was alluded to by the fact that she was considered “the mother of all living things” and for this reason it is related here that she was given this name. And it is possible .that this title applied only to speaking creatures i.e. humans and therefore she was called Chava. Perhaps this is mentioned here to indicate her importance because of her role in procreation.

Rambam (Talmud Torah 1:13)A woman who studies Torah will receive reward but it is not as great as that received by a man because she was not commanded to study Torah. And all who do something without being commanded do not receive as great a reard as those who are commanded. So even though she is rewarded the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because most women are not oriented to intellectual study and therefore there is a danger that they will not understand it improperly and arrive at nonsensical conclusions because of their weak intellectual development. Furthermore  our Sages said whoever teaches his daughter Torah is as if he taught her nonsense (tiflus).But this only applies to the Oral Torah but not to the Written Torah which should also not be taught but if he does it is not considered.that he taught her nonsense.  

 Pesachim (49b): It was taught, Rabbi said: An ‘am ha-arez may not eat the flesh of cattle, for it is said, This is the law [Torah] of the beast, and of the fowl;5 whoever engages in [the study of] the Torah may eat the flesh of beast and fowl, but he who does not engage in [the study of] the Torah may not eat the flesh of beast and fowl.   R. Eleazar said: An ‘am ha-arez, it is permitted to stab him [even] on the Day of Atonement which falls on the Sabbath. Said his disciples to him, Master, say to slaughter him [ritually]? He replied: This [ritual slaughter] requires a benediction, whereas that [stabbing] does not require a benediction. R. Eleazar said: One must not join company with an ‘am ha-arez on the road, because it is said, for that [the Torah] is thy life, and the length of thy days:6 [seeing that] he has no care [pity] for his own life,7 how much the more for the life of his companions! R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Johanan's name: One may tear an ‘am haarez like a fish! Said R. Samuel b. Isaac: And [this means] along his back.