Too long for the comment section
Khouria Frederica Matthews-Green wrote the essay referenced in Sophia's post above. The relevant quote is,
"Something about Orthodoxy has immense appeal to men, and it’s something that their wives—especially those used to worshiping in the softer evangelical style—are generally slower to get. The appeal of joining this vast, ancient, rock-solid communion must be something like the appeal of joining the marines. It’s going to demand a hell of a lot out of you, and it’s not going to cater to your individual whims, but when it’s through with you you’re going to be more than you ever knew you could be. It’s going to demand, not death on the battlefield, but death to self in a million painful ways, and God is going to be sovereign. It’s a guy thing. You wouldn’t understand."
Then the actual 'kicking and screaming' phrase Sophia quoted.
You are both absolutely correct. Orthodoxy, while having great appeal to both sexes (in Christ, there is no male or female) allows men to remain men. American culture (political correctness, etc) seems to want to emasculate men. Orthodoxy wants men to be better (Christ-like) men, not substitute women. I read once an Orthodox Christian who works in marketing who wrote that to his perspective, much of American Protestantism is marketed to 50 year old women.
The question is the ancient ideal of masculine protection of women and children. This is, despite the attempts of certain breeds of feminists to deny it, a biological imperative. Cluttered with bad poetry, it become chivalry. This is the ancestry of what a modern Southerner would refer to as 'manners'. I say Southerner because I'm not sure what Yankees mean by manners, if in fact they are aware of the concept.
It used to be that protection of those who can't protect themselves was enforced strictly by the way the world worked. Those tribes which did not protect their women and children found that their women and children were eaten by hyenas, and so those tribes no longer exist. Modern woman, so the feminists tell us, can protect herself with injunctions and restraining orders, and the assumption that some 158lb guy needs to stick up for her is downright sexist.
Then along come people like yourself and my wife who have discovered that it isn't about limiting women. Protecting women does not merely involve explaining to the Socially Disadvantaged Youth that perhaps my wife's purse is not what he needs to buy his next drug fix. It's about being supportive in every way--financially, emotionally, helping cover responsibilities and duties, etc. In other words, it is about cherishing the women in our lives as we cherish our own bodies (says St. Paul) and loving completely, in a sacrificial manner that extends to being willing to lose our lives if need be. Does that extend to the Church as a whole? Absolutely. A husband is supposed to model Christ, who died for the Church. In the United States, this is rarely necessary. Usually the more pressing need is for guys to show up on Saturday to rake leaves and help with the yard work at the Church. I think I prefer it that way.
In the specific situation mentioned, I happen to agree with the Chaldeans involved. You don't come to my Church and hurl invective that disturbs my service. It wouldn't happen in Texas because even at Church, there are enough CC permit holders to ensure that violent protest doesn't get out of hand. But they presented what a group of recent immigrants from the Middle East would recognize as a prelude to a riot, and they suffered the consequences. People don't get up early in the morning and go scream invective in the Middle East outside a hated minority group's worship services unless they mean to go further. Reap what you sow, etc.