Yes, I think casting of the metaphor backwards is acceptable. My parents made a similar comment: that #6 is especially unpersuasive to a Westerner because this view of leadership is so antithetical to ours.
My first thought when I read #6 was along different lines. It's weird to say that both rulers and women have their "power" preserved by not letting anyone meet with them. However, rulers presumably have at least some control over who they meet; Joe Schmoe may not be able to approach Queen Elizabeth, but if Queen Elizabeth wants to meet Joe Schmoe then nobody's going to stop her. So if women were really queens, they wouldn't be told that they aren't allowed to be in the same room as a non-mahram. They'd have that choice. Otherwise the "status and prestige" mean nothing.
Re: #6
My first thought when I read #6 was along different lines. It's weird to say that both rulers and women have their "power" preserved by not letting anyone meet with them. However, rulers presumably have at least some control over who they meet; Joe Schmoe may not be able to approach Queen Elizabeth, but if Queen Elizabeth wants to meet Joe Schmoe then nobody's going to stop her. So if women were really queens, they wouldn't be told that they aren't allowed to be in the same room as a non-mahram. They'd have that choice. Otherwise the "status and prestige" mean nothing.