Comments Elsewhere

bellatrys: ‘“X entails Y” if you find Y in places where there is no X – it’s called “necessary and sufficient” in formal logic. Chauvinism exists without Bibles; therefore “biblical” is neither necessary nor sufficient for the patriarchy.’

You’re committing a formal fallacy.

Entailment is not the same as equivalence; “p entails q” means that p is a sufficient condition for q (and q a necessary condition for p), not that p is necessary and sufficient for q. Because of the difference, you can’t safely infer “not-p entails not-q” from “p entails q” (that’d be a fallacy of denying the antecedent).

Applying this to the case at hand, you can’t safely infer (as you try to) “No acceptance of Hebrew scriptures entails no patriarchy” from Athana’s claim that “Acceptance of Hebrew scriptures entails patriarchy.” It could be true both that acceptance of Hebrew scriptures is the main or even the sole factor behind patriarchy here, and that something else entirely is what produced patriarchy in other historical societies.

This is not to say whether Athana or you is right about causes and effects here. But you are supporting your claims with a fallacy on this point.