Eh, I don't really know enough to do a full critique - but, I think it sounds like a bunch of crap.
From my own (limited) study of anthropology and taboos, herders did not have a "violent" relationship with their animals. This sounds like a bunch of Peta-influenced crazy-talk. The reason why animal sacrifice and hence ritualized slaughter existed was to overcome the inherent violence of slaughtering the domesticated animal to eat. It seems that every act of slaughter was a religious ritual among some groups (hence why every bronze age village in Palestine had its own goat-size altar and temple), with the Divinity being acknowledged and some sort of taboo being followed (such as pouring the blood into the soil). Whether this translates into them being more violent in general is difficult, I think. IMO a culture which acknowledges a problem and seeks to solve it with elaborate rituals is less likely to wantonly engage in that behavior.
And I'm not sure about the idea of goddesses being signs of female empowerment, that also seems to be a bunch of feminist inspired crazy-talk. If you read the earliest existing religious texts even the most powerful goddesses are recipients of some form of subjugation. In the Egyptian creation myth the ancient sky-goddess had to go to long and violent lengths just to bear some children, but, of course, this is only by continuously having sex with her brother. Lovely.