The thing to remember is that the Eastern and African faiths tend to be less hierarchical and dogmatic like Western ones, and more folk religion. So things are more muddled all around, because individual regions/tribes/towns may have their own spin/variant on a given myth/story/deity.
But, for example, let's look at Hinduism. In many forms of Hinduism, Kali is a Huge Fucking Deal. Kali is, in these variants, arguably one of, if not the, most important deva. Goddess of life and death, rebirth and the turning of the wheel, and all that stuff. But the religion itself is still generally male oriented and dominated. You find things are similar in many African religions, too. Even though a goddess or goddesses may be Big Fucking Deals, and even though you may have women in a few places of extreme power by virtue of their role as priestesses, by and large the social order created and espoused by the religion is one where women are subservient to men and powerful priestesses and shit are exceptions rather than rules.
EDIT: Also, keeping in mind the theme of feminism, I'd argue that in many cases priestesses ought not be considered a sign of female power, much as with female saints. There's nothing wrong with prudery, in reason, if that's what you want, and an asexual woman is no less of a woman than a woman who revels in her sexuality. But that said, these are choices, we're talking about. Women choosing to embrace or suppress their femininity and sexuality. When in many religions sainthood or priesthood requires virginity, and/or asexuality, and/or generally denying your femininity, can it be said to be a symbol of female power? Is a female saint really a symbol of feminine power when to become a saint required she deny and suppress all the outward signs of her femaleness?
If the only way a woman can become powerful in a society is by acting like what that society considers to be a man, or otherwise denying her femaleness, I don't think you can call that society female oriented.