The interpretation and importance of such things as fertility symbols and fertility goddesses played a big role in early Near Eastern mythology is something debated on in academia. There is no solid consensus. However, a line such as "peaceful, benevolent matriarchal society and Goddess-reverent traditions (including Ancient Egypt) were attacked, undermined and ultimately destroyed almost completely, by the ancient tribes including Hebrews and later the early Christians" is stupendously bizarre and probably wouldn't be taken seriously by any mainstream historian.

Merlin Stone was an art historian and her attempt at writing non-art history in "When God Was a Woman" resulted in a work that is a bit kooky, to say the least. Why do I say that? Because she basically takes an absolutely tiny amount of archaeological artifacts and tries to create vast and simplistic models for a variety of different societies that existed over pretty large timespans based on that wholly insufficient archaeological evidence. The analogy isn't perfect, but imagine trying to come up with a model describing the cultures that have existed in the Middle East from, say, 1000 AD to pick an arbitrary date, to today, and you had to construct that model based on perhaps a few statues and maybe some paintings here and there, assisted perhaps some generally-agreed upon historical notions. Do you think the resulting model would neatly describe the actual reality of the Middle East from 1000 AD to the present day? I should hope not, because it probably wouldn't. The analogy isn't perfect, but my point is that Stone basically creates a very neat and tidy model that doesn't really hold up to much scrutiny.

A lot of historians who focus on theology also question her writings about Eve but I can't really speak on that matter.