The Bible, in all it's variants - yes. I think we only get a radical power shift when we challenge the texts which is a perfectly acceptable way to handle it. I mean, Israel does mean to wrestle with God and even within the texts, people argue with God, win, and He can be pleased by this.
Studying the early church and how books were edited to fit a particular narrative (we have fragments where it's clear a name has been written over and similar edits) and how different books were selected to be "universal" when clearly it was universal to a particular male ideal of hierarchal power does make it hard not to see the Bible as a tools by and for power and to sanction particular ideals and practices including misogynistic ones. Same can be said for how different types of religious and highly valued texts were codified.
Some sects have moved away from that use of the texts where people focus on how things then are different to now and there have been translation shifts over the centuries that have altered how certain verses have been used (some for better, some for worse), but I don't see that as changing the issues within the texts itself and how cultures have wrapped around them. A sect being less misogynistic doesn't change how much misogyny is in and has been supported by the Bible. We can find instances of them being 'radical' towards women, though many of them aren't very clear cut (Jesus praising Mary for listening to his teaching through insulting Martha for doing housework and no real radical push for any of the men to help in housework, Paul commanding women to obey their husband is meant to be balanced by men laying down their lives - one is every day, the other is ridiculously dramatic and can only be actually done once) and didn't actually create a radical power shift anymore than Jesus overturning table at the Temple market didn't actually change anything.
I know I would struggle with anything as strict as Judaism, (although there's also something in it that I find it strangely appealing since watching Shtisel)
Much as Christianity has a wide range of strictness between different groups, so does Judaism and there are ways that very common Christian doctrine can be viewed as stricter and leaning more heavily into misogyny in how it interprets the same texts than most of it's Jewish counterparts.
Judaism has many of the same problems with how the texts were created and have been used obviously, but original sin and Eve being the source as an example isn't a concept in most of Judaism. In fact, it's widely discussed within even Orthodox sects that the 'first sin' was actually Adam lying to Eve -- Adam is given the commandment not to eat the fruit, Eve later states a different one of not to touch it or they'll die which wasn't the law which is what allowed the serpent to convince her when that didn't happen. This is used to discuss the risk of ring fencing rules that create additional boundaries but end up causing problems and that the difference was caused by Adam overstepping his mark to be more "pure" and "safe" by lying to her about what God said, putting her at risk and harm. The idea in many Christian sects that Eve is what doomed us isn't really found much in Jewish writings on the topic. It likely comes from later influences (much as we date some Jewish writings by Persian, Greek, Roman and such influences seen in the texts, the same is true of Christian ones and of theology around it) that were then applied to the understanding of that part of the texts to make certain views and actions towards women acceptable.
And for strictness - I don't see much stricter than the fire and brimstone hell as a place of eternal torment for nonbelievers -- even within the strictest Jewish sects that include an individualistic afterlife where people are punished, the worst of the worst people go through that for a year (it's seen as bad to do the Kaddish prayer for a full year because that would assume we view the person as among the most wicked willful transgressors). I find the idea that God creates people to suffer eternally (particularly in a Calvinistic pre-determined way) incredibly strict and vile, possibly amplified by those I've known who take it literally who seem to get pleasure - some outright saying that - from the idea of seeing people being tortured for eternity.