Hezkut – The Method of Rabbi Soloveitchik – The Method of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein

In an article by Rabbi Ohad Pixler
https://www.etzion.org.il/he/talmud/seder-nashim/massekhet-kiddushin/%D7%97%D7%96%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%A6%D7%9C-%D7%97%D7%96%D7%9C
Rabbi Soloveitchik is quoted:
Let me add something very important: not only the laws, but also the assumptions that the Sages used to discuss the laws of the Torah, are unassailable. Do not touch, not only the laws but also the assumptions, because the assumptions that the Sages spoke about are not based on transient, changing psychological behavioral patterns, but on fixed ontological principles (ontology = that part of metaphysics that discusses the essence of beings), rooted in the very depths of the metaphysical human personality, which cannot be changed like the heavens above.
Let us take, for example, the proposition – which I was told was asked to be put up for discussion – of ‘Tev lemitev ten du malmitev armelo’ (Kiddushin 7:1) – a woman prefers to live with two than alone.

Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein in his article: Tovah Torah with an inheritance
https://www.etzion.org.il/sites/default/files/ral-torah_and_culture.pdf
Page 2 writes:
However, even with this enrichment, the spiritual contribution of general wisdom does not end. Through fertilization, completion, in addition to illuminating focal points or expanding Torah horizons, general culture develops, in scope and intensity, areas and skills that Torah, in its precise and limited definition, barely addresses. Knowing the world of God, not only in its ideal halakhic form but in its actual embodiment, in the universe and in history; designing and knowing the world of creation in flesh and blood, especially in the field of art, with all its branches; examining the intricacies of the human soul, with all its intricacies and crevices; in all this, Torah, in the accepted sense, deals only with the halakhic. Of course, since the halakhic is supposed to be embodied in physical and human reality, dealing with it includes a wealth of assumptions and determinations regarding its nature: “It is certain that no man breaks his time,” “It is impossible for the higher to come until the lower comes,” etc., etc. However, the normative and operative halakhic is always at the center, and not the being in which it is applied. And after all, every rabbi is well aware of the aversion of the world of Torah to controversy “in reality.” 6 Torah greats have dealt with these general levels at times, even within halakhic frameworks, such as the halakhic laws of the Foundations of the Torah and the halakhic laws of opinion of the Rambam. Particular attention has been paid to the psychological realm, and the Mossar movement is a prominent example of this. However, it is certain that comprehensive and thorough discussions in these areas are not central to the Torah world, and the previous description, “frozen,” remains with us.
There are those who believe, of course, that as things stand, these areas have no value. But for those who believe that contemplating the story of the heavens and the Haggadah of the firmament belongs to their spiritual existence; for those for whom remembering the days of the world is important in itself and even helps them cope with understanding each generation; for those who see the penetration and following of every human being as a moral and human task, they will find in the wisdom that stands alongside the Torah (according to the definition of the Sages – 7) a source of wisdom, sensitivity, and spiritual inspiration.

If I understand correctly, in these words Rabbi Lichtenstein is actually criticizing his father-in-law (politely). He gives an example of an assumption that anyone who understands economics at the level of a housewife knows is irrelevant, at least not in the Western world. From this it can seemingly be continued that anyone who knows the nature of the economy and society of the Western world today will not accept “the best of Tendo.” Shulamit Shahar, The Status of Women in the Middle Ages, states that until modern times a woman without a supportive husband could only survive as a nun or a prostitute.
What does the rabbi think? Does Rabbi Lichtenstein really disagree with the Rid?