If you say that Srila Prabhupada is under the influence of his early twenteth-century Bengali upbringing, then you are saying that Srila Prabhupada is still under the influence of the modes of nature and therefore not a mahabhagavata.

If you try to get out of it and say that Srila Prabhupada is indeed a mahabhagavata but still influenced in some ways by the early twentieth-century Bengali culture, then you are saying that Krsna consciousness is useless because even a person who has attained the topmost level cannot transcend the modes of nature.

Generally, men who are very experienced with women have no trouble with Srila Prabhupada's statements about women, and many women have no problems either.

In 1966, I said to Srila Prabhupada, "The Americans will not accept these things you are saying about women." Srila Prabhupada replied, "I am not going to change the truth for the Americans."

Srila Prabhupada says: "At night you cannot see the sun, but when the sun rises, you can see the sun, you can see yourself also. By seeing sun, you can see yourself, you can see the world. Similarly, when you see Krsna, then you see everything. "Without seeing Krsna, your eyes are blind, your senses are imperfect. Therefore it is said that 'Self-realized soul can impart
knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.'" [Bhagavad-gita 4.34-39 — Los Angeles, January 12, 1969]

Does Srila Prabhupada see Krsna or does he not? Who among Srila Prabhupada's critics can say that they have seen Krsna?

Sorry folks, but Krsna consciousness is a package deal. It's all or nothing.