I found some misogynist interpretations of Bhagavad Gita in the commentary section from A. C. Bhakti' Prabhupada.
For example, in Verse 1:40 he writes,
"Such population depends on the chastity and faithfulness of its womanhood. As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation. Therefore, both children and women require protection by the elder members of the family. By being engaged in various religious practices, women will not be misled into adultery. According to Canakya Pandita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. So the different family traditions of religious activities should always engage them, and thus their chastity and devotion will give birth to a good population eligible for participating in the varëäçrama system. On the failure of such varëäçrama-dharma, naturally the women become free to act and mix with men, and thus adultery is indulged in at the risk of unwanted population. Irresponsible men also provoke adultery in society, and thus unwanted children flood the human race at the risk of war and pestilence."
Also, the verse number doesn't match with some other Gita versions for example, In Annie Besant and Bhagavan Das version the verse is 1:41 instead of 1:40. The same in Gita Society of Belgium version and International Gita Society/USA.
In Eknath Easwaran's version, the verse is translated/interpreted as
"decline of the family and ancient traditions."
In verse 9:32 according to As it is:
"O son of Prthä, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth—women, vaisyas [merchants] and sudras [workers]—can attain the supreme destination."
The Annie Besant version says:
"They who take refuse with Me, O Pârtha, though of the womb of sin, women, Vaishyas, even Shûdras, they also tread the highest path."
The Eknath Easwaran's version seems more progressive and less vitriolic:
"All those who take refuge in me, whatever their birth, race, sex, or caste, will attain the supreme goal."
In his commentary to verse 16:1-3 A. C.B. S. writes in As it is,
"Lord Caitanya was an ideal sannyäsé, and when He was at Puré His feminine devotees could not even come near to offer their respects. They were advised to bow down from a distant place. This is not a sign of hatred for women as a class, but it is a stricture imposed on the sannyäsé not to have close connections with women. One has to follow the rules and regulations of a particular status of life in order to purify his existence. For a sannyäsé, intimate relations with women and possession of wealth for sense gratification are strictly forbidden. The ideal sannyäsé was Lord Caitanya Himself, and we can learn from His life that He was very strict in regards to women."
The same barrage of subhumanization continues in 16:7 commentary by A.C. BS with reference to Manu-samhita:
"...in the Manu-samhitä it is clearly stated that a woman should not be given freedom. That does not mean that women are to be kept as slaves, but they are like children. Children are not given freedom, but that does not mean that they are kept as slaves. The demons have now neglected such injunctions, and they think that women should be given as much freedom as men. However, this has not improved the social condition of the world. Actually, a woman should be given protection at every stage of life. She should be given protection by the father in her younger days, by the husband in her youth, and by the grownup sons in her old age. This is proper social behavior according to the Manu-samhitä. But modern education has artificially devised a puffed-up concept of womanly life, and therefore marriage is practically now an imagination in human society. Nor is the moral condition of woman very good now. The demons, therefore, do not accept any instruction which is good for society, and because they do not follow the experience of great sages and the rules and regulations laid down by the sages, the social condition of the demoniac people is very miserable."
This interpretation is far far from the verse which is:
"Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found in them."
According to Annie Besant the same verse goes:
"Demoniacal know neither right energy nor right abstinence; nor purity, not even propriety, nor truth is in them."
which is pretty similar to Eknath Easwaran's.
There maybe other instances of vilifying women or speak in an ill manner that doesn't go with progressive values of universal human equality. But how did this version of Bhagavad Gita got so popular esp. in Western world despite such defaming prose. I don't speak Sanskrit, I have that drawback, so I managed to read multiple versions of Gita and what I understood that the oration of Krsna in Gita doesn't have such language. So is it brushing such misogyny of a prominent preacher under the carpet or west's lack of knowledge like me to propagate such thoughts that is antithetical to progressive values?
If anyone can add or enlighten me, would be much humbled.