DY – I disagree with your diyuk. I don’t think that statement, even as quoted, negates kiyum hamitzvos, his or hers, as not counting. It’s coming la’afukei from her learning (knowledge/accomplishment in learning).
I agree that is probably not what Rav Ahron meant, but being that it could be and is read by both men and women for their own purposes, it could have been said better.
I don’t know what you mean “the problem”. Also, if she sees her role of breadwinner as one of allowing him to learn, it’s not a stirah to traditionally defined roles and relationship (there is a danger of this financial arrangement being perceived differently; it’s a risk/reward balance).
Chazal never saw a woman’s “role” to be a breadwinner who supports her husband in learning. The “negative social impact”, even if she allows him to learn by working, is that she is now “in charge” of the familiy (by virtue of funding) and that changes her role. It certainly is possible that you will have a working woman who still defers to her learning husband at all times (as you point out), but the shift in responsibilities and by extension power/role is still there.
His comment, as quoted, addressed the knowledge, not the act of learning, so it’s not a stirah.
I don’t think you will find anyone who would begin to say that knowledge of Shas, even by a lowly female, is completely worthless and “nothing”. If we Paskened like Rabbi Yehuda, would that make Rav Yosef’s Torah worthless? Was Tavi’s Torah worthless? Rabban Gamliel certainly didn’t think so.