Rick, let me ask you in your example above, if it had been a man correcting the clergy exactly the same way would it have been more acceptable? If the answer is yes, then we are dealing with the role of men and women, if the answer is no, then we are just plain dealing with how people fail to live up to the ideals that Christ calls us to.
People in some traditions that I am familiar with would say yes, it is acceptable for a man to correct a man, but not for a woman to do it. Even if the woman did it meekly and respectfully the woman would still be in the wrong. They would have many other rules for what men can do that women can't do. But I have not come across this type of division of roles in any of my reading thus far in the Fathers. What I see historically and in what I have run into thus far is that there is the same expectation of moral purity on both, but not much mention of roles per say.
Actually these sermons don't teach that man has some kind of absolute authority over a woman that puts her in subjection to him. In the homily on I Cor. His point is that the relationship between man and woman is similar to the relationship of Christ to the Father. And specifically in the case of those who were trying to subordinate the Son to the Father in some kind or hierarchy he rebukes this notion.
For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as you say, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master. For what if the wife be under subjection to us? It is as a wife, as free, as equal in honor."
In the homily on Ephesians his main emphasis is on harmony. And again there is no absolute subjection of the wife to the husband but rather
"And Paul would never without a reason and without an object have spent so much pains on this subject, as when he says here, Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. And why so? Because when they are in harmony, the children are well brought up, and the domestics are in good order, and neighbors, and friends, and relations enjoy the fragrance. But if it be otherwise, all is turned upside down, and thrown into confusion. And just as when the generals of an army are at peace one with another, all things are in due subordination, whereas on the other hand, if they are at variance, everything is turned upside down; so, I say, is it also here. Wherefore, says he, Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ...
He does not say, one spirit, he does not say, one soul (for that is manifest, and is possible to any one), but so as to be one flesh. She is a second authority, possessing indeed an authority, and a considerable equality of dignity; but at the same time the husband has somewhat of superiority. In this consists most chiefly the well-being of the house.
Notice he compares this not to a general and his subordinate, but to generals of an army and the way in which they need to submit to one another and work together in order to have harmony in the army. I am actually amazed, because I had not noticed anything like this before, not having looked through these sermons with this in mind. One work though cannot be said to tell us what Orthodoxy teaches.
However, later in the homily on Corinthians he does say,
"For with us indeed the woman is reasonably subjected to the man: since equality of honor causes contention. And not for this cause only, but by reason also of the deceit 1 Timothy 2:14 which happened in the beginning. Wherefore you see, she was not subjected as soon as she was made; nor, when He brought her to the man, did either she hear any such thing from God, nor did the man say any such word to her: he said indeed that she was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh: Genesis 2:23 but of rule or subjection he no where made mention unto her. But when she made an ill use of her privilege and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer and ruined all, then she is justly told for the future, your turning shall be to your husband.
In other words, what it seems to be saying is that by nature, as man had been created there is an equality of honor between men and women. This is different then certain traditional mindsets where women are subject to men because of their inferior nature. But he also says that due to sin, the woman is subject to the man and certainly this has been true throughout most of history and this curse has been intrinsic in most cultures.
However, since the Church is the reality of the New Creation and man's redemption, then ideally men and women have regained this equality of honor in Her and within Her life. But we also allow that sin still happens and so how has Orthodoxy traditionally dealt with this? I stated above what I have seen historically but admittedly this is sketchy and I don't know the full answer to this question.