Kristen

Craig,
Yes, that is the way Mark on Sola Panel seemed to be viewing authority. What he seemed to be saying is that women could lead, but not have authority– which logically translates to women’s leadership being a sort of beta-wolf leadership, under the alpha male wolf (if you don’t mind the analogy). In other words, the one responsible for the outcome must ultimately be the one in charge. Any leadership women would have would be delegated leadership. That is, they could be gifted to lead and could do any leadership that the one in authority permitted them to do– but ultimately, their leadership would have to be under his control. They could not be allowed to lead outside the scope he had granted– otherwise, how could he be responsible for the results? If an under-leader did step out from under her authority tp do something he wouldn’t want her to do, then she would be at fault– but he is the one ultimately calling the shots.
The way Mark appears to see it is kind of like the way things work with my boss at work. He gives me a lot of latitude to do my job– but he is the one who sets the perameters, and I must stay within the boundaries of his delegation. Because I’m a paralegal and he’s a lawyer, that means I can, in my own discretion, interview clients and collect data from them, draft legal documents using that data, and research and follow court procedures in the course of my work. Ultimately, though, I can’t do anything he hasn’t given me the power to do, and I can’t practice law– I can’t advise clients, send out a document I have drafted without his approval, and so on. He may consult me on office systems and policies, but he’s the one who has the final say on what systems get used and what policies get set.
So Mark’s view of women’s leadership, as far as I can see, still does contain that trump-card idea– it’s just that he doesn’t want us to notice.