One could say by the same token, Gadolhadorah, that it’s easier to criticize others for focusing on Halachic issues instead of on introspection, than it is to be introspective yourself.
Not that I disagree with you; people like me should certainly spend more time on introspection than we do.
However, I do not agree with your attempt to slam the door on this discussion, and I emphatically disagree with your tactic. There is no reason for personal attacks here.
Actually, this is a perfectly valid debate about an important Halachic issue. The fact that the practical aspect of this Halacha relates more to women than to men is no reason for men not to discuss it and invest great energy in it. I doubt you would have made the same observation about a discussion of the Halachos of lighting candles on Friday night.
All of these issues were litigated multiple times over the years, most recently about ten years ago. I heard from a source very close to Rav Belsky that when Rav Belsky went to Rav Elyashiv’s house to discuss the questions about Sheitlach, Rav Elyashiv acknowledged that he was not provided with compelling evidence to support an Issur, and that according to Rav Belsky’s data it would be Muttar. No change in the Metzius is alleged in the recent Kol Koreh.
If I remember correctly, Rav Belsky was joined in allowing Indian Sheitlach by Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky, Rav Dovid Feinstein, Rav Dovid Cohen, Rav Feivel Cohen, and the vast majority of Poskim in America at the time. Unlike the Anisakis worm and Copepod issues (which were going on at around the same time), there was broad consensus on this, at least on this side of the Atlantic.
Menu