וַיִּ֩חַר֩ לְאַבְנֵ֨ר מְאֹ֜ד עַל־דִּבְרֵ֣י אִֽישׁ־בֹּ֗שֶׁת וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הֲרֹ֨אשׁ כֶּ֥לֶב אָנֹ֘כִי֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לִֽיהוּדָה֒ הַיּ֨וֹם אֶעֱשֶׂה־חֶ֜סֶד עִם־בֵּ֣ית ׀ שָׁא֣וּל אָבִ֗יךָ אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ וְאֶל־מֵ֣רֵעֵ֔הוּ וְלֹ֥א הִמְצִיתִ֖ךָ בְּיַד־דָּוִ֑ד וַתִּפְקֹ֥ד עָלַ֛י עֲוֺ֥ן הָאִשָּׁ֖ה הַיּֽוֹם׃
Abner was very upset by what Ish-bosheth said, and he replied, “Am I a dog’s head from Judah? Here I have been loyally serving the House of your father Saul and his kinsfolk and friends, and I have not betrayed you into the hands of David; yet this day—over this woman—you reproach me!
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ—in this case, its feminine form אִשָּׁה—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this document, pp. 11–16.)
The noun phrase הָאִשָּׁה has an ambiguous reference, partly because as a genitive it is not clearly referential. There are two defensible construals. One is that it points to an individual (namely Rizpah; see previous verse), regarding her in terms of the established situation under discussion—as previously depicted by Abner’s master. She is cast as an essential participant and as a cognitive point of reference. As such, the present usage is unremarkable and purely descriptive.
The other possible construal is that it refers to a type (which in this case, given no further stated criteria, defaults to women as a category). On such usage, see my comment at 1 Sam 9:9. According to this reading, Abner is implying that a mere woman is not worth trifling over. That implication seems unlikely, given the general knowledge that lying with the concubine of one’s master is a serious act (Gen 35:22; 49:3–4; 2 Sam 16:21–22). There is no compelling evidence that Abner was expressing misogyny, by contrasting Rizpah with men, or otherwise dismissing or disparaging her womanliness. The phrase עֲוֺן הָאִשָּׁה is otherwise unattested, so there is no evidence that it was a fixed expression, and no evidence that it was used disparagingly about women.
The conventional (individual) reading yields an informative and coherent text. Therefore I take it to be the plain sense of this passage. In short, Abner is outraged not only about being reproached at all, but also being, in effect, accused of insubordination.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘yet this day you reproach me over a woman’ presents the reference as being to a type, which as argued above is less likely. The revised rendering expresses an individual construal.