Is the argument here "two women were employed in 1434, therefore no patriarchy"? Is it "there were a few women who had jobs in a few cities, therefore no patriarchy"?
I did some research on those cities and their practices. It sounds like it was still considered pretty surprising for women to take on those jobs, and that they were usually part of the family business. They apprenticed so they could help in hard times, but we're still expected to give up the work and take on what was seen as a woman's role when those times concluded. The other group of female apprentices were orphans. A woman having such a job was not considered standard practice.
Not to mention, the vast majority of those listed tradesman are, in fact, men. Owning a business or land was still something only men could do. You found exceptions to a rule in 1434 and in a few towns whose models were slightly different than the rest of their nation. I promise you that does not discredit the reality that, for the majority of western women throughout history, they had very little control over any aspect of democracy, business, or even their own lives, and were often even seen as property of their husbands
https://b-womeninamericanhistory18.blogspot.com/2019/03/in-business-female-apprentices.html?m=1
https://www.slaveryandremembrance.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/women.cfm?showSite=mobile-regular
https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/iowa-historical-review/article/id/1630/print/
https://womenshistorynetwork.org/patriarchs-power-and-eighteenth-century-marriage/
It does exist but it is a positive existence. However, the other definition of patriarchy definitely does not exist
A last name isn't a positive or negative experience, it's just a fact - our society traces lineage through the paternal line. Have you stopped to consider why that might be? I've given examples of women not being allowed to vote, work, have bank accounts, etc. while men took on the primary roles in every career field and leadership office.