[H]e acknowledged that since the YU semichah program ordains many who are not going into the pulpit (education, chaplaincy, kashrut, kiruv, or professional fields outside the context of Jewish communal work) the Rav [Soloveitchik] was not concerned about the issues [ = prohibitions] of serarah [authority] for geirim [converts] entering the rabbinical school. Rav Schachter felt this was different for women where the entire purpose of ordination is to provide them with the credentials to be "pulpit rabbis".In other words, for geirim, the prohibition for them to wield serarah is ignored and they are granted semikhah because geirim who are rabbis can serve in offices beside the pulpit and thus circumvent the prohibition of serarah. By contrast, according to Rabbi Schachter, women will occupy pulpits and only pulpits, and that is all they will do with their semikhah, and so we cannot grant semikhah.
But this is nonsense. Women want the title so that they can do whatever male rabbis do, whether that's to occupy a pulpit or to write books with the word "rabbi" on the cover. Women do not want the title simply so that they can occupy pulpits. After all, Esther Jungreis and Lynne Kaye are doing just fine with their pulpits even without formal titles. If all women wanted to do was occupy pulpits, then they could go right ahead even without formal ordination. I'd further note that the Hafetz Haim did not have formal ordination. Conversely, men can hold the title of "rabbi" irrespective of their occupations. The natural presumption is that anyone wishing for women's ordination is asking for the same ability. If the RCA thinks the argument is otherwise, the burden of proof is on them, and yet I've seen no such proof from them. Therefore, the natural presumption remains that the controversy is over women possessing the title even without occupying a pulpit.
The fact that the RCA said nothing against Esther Jungreis or Lynne Kaye - both of whom do occupy pulpits - but attacked Sara Hurewitz shows that the RCA's issue is not with pulpits per se, but purely with the title. The RCA couldn't care less what women do, as long as they don't have the title.
(1) Women have been agitating for the title of "rabbi" not so that they can occupy pulpits, but so that they can have the same title for men, and get the same "pay" (the honor of a title) for the same work. But what that work is, and whether it includes pulpits, is an entirely different question. Whether or not women will occupy pulpits, this is entirely distinct from the question of their possessing the title of "rabbi".
(2) As I said, whether or not women can occupy pulpits is separate from whether they are called "rabbi". Esther Jungreis and Lynne Kaye do not possess the title of "rabbi", and both are nevertheless occupying pulpits. The RCA seems to have no objection.
We thus see from the RCA's own actions that it does not mind women's occupying pulpits, but it does mind their being called "rabbi" even if they do not occupy pulpits. If the RCA had wanted to, they could have said that women may not occupy pulpits but that they may nevertheless hold the title of "rabbi" (or its equivalent) for non-pulpit purposes, just as many men already do today. But since the RCA did not do that, what that means is that the RCA is opposed to far more than just women holding pulpits. They are opposed to women carrying the title itself, irrespective of what they do with it. Ironically, the RCA has no problem with Esther Jungreis acting like a pulpit-rabbi, and yet it objects to a woman possessing the title even without acting like a pulpit-rabbi. If anything, the RCA seems to be more opposed to the title itself than to the office of pulpit; if anything, the RCA is more opposed to a woman with the title of "Rabbi" who works in business or secular education than a woman with the title of "Dr." or "Ms." who gives sermons and teaches Torah. So the RCA's own actions indicate they have no problem with women occupying pulpits as long as they lack the title, and that conversely, they oppose women having the title regardless of whether they occupy pulpits.
One aside: my entire post has been assuming, for the sake of argument, that women are in fact prohibited to wield authority, to possess serarah, but that they can still do other rabbinic tasks, exactly as with geirim. But the truth is that both geirim and women can wield serarah, if only the people democratically accept them and democratically wave the prohibition of serarah. Rabbi Benzion Uziel shows this in his teshuva on women's suffrage. It seems to me that this is because Judaism is a democracy. According to the Torah, a communal authority can wield power only if the people accept him. In times past, people were racist and sexist and rejected women and converts. They were not justified in this, but reality was reality and fact was fact, and if authority requires democratic consent, then women and converts were ineligible. Thank G-d, we have evolved since that time, and now that we accept women and converts as the equal citizens they in fact are, we are now ready to democratically accept them, all things being equal, i.e. assuming they are otherwise equal to the male non-converts they are running against.