He’s prepared them in the last chapter, telling them he needs to wake them from a dream and that is for their own good. And now he whacks them.
This is the full on bleak vision of Jerusalem’s future, their leaders useless, their young men dead, the women and children who survive stripped of all possessions finery and dignity, scabrous, homeless, with only sacks to wear.
It reads a bit like a socialist or misogynist rant again the power structures or the finery of Jerusalem’s women, but the previous chapter set the frame of his concern over their indifference to God. It’s tough love, not rage.
I was struck by the casual sexism of his reference to being ruled by women as a sign that society has gone to the dogs.
But I’m confident that is an artefact of Isaiah’s cultural bias, not the point of the passage. Against it, for example, is the positive contribution of women in kings described in instances of them having special insight into God’s word and taking proactive steps to act on their understanding.
Isaiah would have known female prophets, and in kings at least their gender is a non-issue, they are mentioned only for the truth that they speak
The passage tells me about the urgency of the Christian message, something I find hard to think about.