The thing that surprised me about the Adam and Eve story when I actually took the time to read it in an actual bible is a) there are 2 completely different stories that put the order of creation differently. In the first one the two unnamed people are made at the same time on the sixth day. In the second Eve is made of Adam's rib. In order to explain this scholars made up the idea of Lilith, the first wife who always wanted to have sex on top and so argued over dominance. She flew away from the garden (with those wings that women used to have) and then sat by a river murdering babies. Even though at this time there were no babies and there was no death because Adam and Eve were still in the garden.
As hilarious as the backstory to Lilith, who's only actual appearance in scripture is 'so God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female', is; It's interesting that they took this time to explain this discrepancy. There are way more discrepancies between the two versions than this. in the second version of the story (the version with Eve) you lose the whole days structure and the little man is created before the plants and the animals.
Why did scholars spend so much time coming up with a backstory for the original woman, explaining how she did exist but then disappeared, but neglected to do the same for the original trees and elephants?
b) In the version that Eve appears in, God gives his instructions about which fruit Adam can eat before he creates Eve. He does not seem to go back and reissue his commandments once all interested parties are in attendance. Yet somehow the almighty, omnipotent omnipresent creator of the universe manages to blame this brand new woman for his pretty shocking oversight.
c) As lass pointed out - God really does set them up to fail. Mostly by putting the tree smack bang in the centre of the garden and then drawing attention to it. But also: This is the tree of knowledge - understanding of good and evil, right and wrong. Before they eat from the tree - they don't know right from wrong - so how does God expect them to know that it's wrong to not obey him? He's supposed to be all knowing. He's a fucking idiot!
d) How did the omnipresent, all knowing God manage to miss Eve eating the fruit? There are literally two people on the planet. He can see everything at once. This is the first thing that has ever happened. And he misses it.
E) There is nothing in Genesis that claims the snake is the devil. In the old testament Satan is still good buddies with God, playing with Job's life. It's only the book of revelation, which refers to the devil as 'the ancient serpent' that started this whole 'the snake was the devil' falsehood.
F) God cursed the snake to crawl on his belly as punishment for tricking Eve. Meaning that the snake in the story had feet. Not only could he talk - he could dance! All pictures depicting the garden of Eden should be updated to portray snakey mcsnakeface's feet. (I wonder if all animals in Eden could talk or just the snakes? And whilst striking the snake dumb might seem adequate punishment, why did God pick on the rhinos as well? Or did the animals lose their ability to talk somewhere else? If it was just the snakes, why the snakes? And if all animals can talk and think, why are people the boss? )
Basically the whole thing is just a terrible written story from start to finish, with glaring plot holes you could drive a bus through and demonstrates nothing other than that men have been hating and blaming and mistreating women for their own misdeeds for thousands of years.
Patriarchal religions are misogynistic shocker! 
I agree with everyone that religion is a tool that misogynistic men use to uphold their own supremacy - it is not the root of the misogyny itself.
Back in Medieval times the church used to teach that men were the true image of God and women were literally deformed men, not a thing in and of themselves, but a bastardisation of God's form. It would be nice, seeing as how science has since proved that is the Y chromosome that is the mutation, if the church could apologise or that nasty little bit of slander.