"I see nothing wrong with the involvement of founders' wives in the business"
This is nuts.
If person A works at a company then obviously their significant other (male or female) will likely talk with them about work situations and that may be more or less helpful to A and the company. But the idea that as a general rule a female significant other's contribution will be so significant just by virtue of the "level of complexity" of the "social thinking" is just absurd.
therom reading the article, I got the vibe that the wife may have felt innatelyterritoriallyly?) threatened by the thought of a (pretty) female in the company getting close with her founder husband in a more intimate, rather than professional, typofof way. Thoughts?
This is nuts.
If person A works at a company then obviously their significant other (male or female) will likely talk with them about work situations and that may be more or less helpful to A and the company. But the idea that as a general rule a female significant other's contribution will be so significant just by virtue of the "level of complexity" of the "social thinking" is just absurd.