And yes, I think the commentary absolutely does deny the woman agency, probably for the simple reason that women in ancient times seem to have been somewhere between cattle and male humans in the views of men.
I don't think it's quite that monolithic—the ketubah, for example, the traditional Jewish marriage contract, which was codified about two thousand years ago and therefore predates the scholars being quoted in this passage, exists specifically to protect the woman's rights, not the honor of her family or the man she's married to—but I would prefer someone with more Talmudic knowledge than me to make the argument. I linked a further tweet from the thread to lauradi7dw, below.
Re: background
I don't think it's quite that monolithic—the ketubah, for example, the traditional Jewish marriage contract, which was codified about two thousand years ago and therefore predates the scholars being quoted in this passage, exists specifically to protect the woman's rights, not the honor of her family or the man she's married to—but I would prefer someone with more Talmudic knowledge than me to make the argument. I linked a further tweet from the thread to