Prince and his entire family have a psychological problem: Yukta Mookhey

Jul 9, 2013
Yukta Mookhey got married to Prince Tuli from Nagpur in November 2008. She had visited Nagpur during the promotion of her film Memsaab during June-July 2008 when she stayed at his family-owned hotel, Tuli International. 

They met each other via people at their hotel and did not exchange numbers initially, but he got her number and they spoke and met a couple of times, met her parents in Mumbai and they agreed to marry soon thereafter. Four years into their marriage, she moved back to Mumbai into her parents' house and filed a case of domestic violence against Prince and his family on July 4th, 2012. On May 16, 2013 he filed an application for divorce. She has subsequently registered an FIR for domestic violence and unnatural sex against him. She exclusively spoke to the Media about what led her to take this drastic step. Excerpts from the conversation:

When did you first realise there was a problem in your marriage?
Initially when I met him, I obviously had no reason to doubt him. But problems started within the first month of our marriage. Now when I look back, there are things that seem obvious, but at that stage they did not seem odd. For instance, my sister-in-law interrogated me in a hotel till 3 am about how much I earned, what I planned to do with my life, what kind of marriage I would give, what I would do with my money after marriage, whether or not I would give it to my husband or my in-laws, whose name both my Mumbai flats were in, etc. There is a healthy way of asking, but this was covertly done. Usually when the boy and girl are compatible, this does not happen. While Prince is 31, his sister and I are the same age and are 34. She lives in Mumbai with her kids and was probably therefore given the task of interviewing me. Meeting a family person when you are contemplating marriage is fine, but it was different interviewing someone till 3 in the morning in the way it was done. Prince had once asked me, 'How does it feel to get married into a family where everyone has mistresses?' I had dismissed it, thinking it to be ridiculous.

They are wealthy people. Why would they be interested in your money?
So it seems, but I had different experiences. They may have disposable income, but if you can't make use of your culture, education and values, what's the point ? I never asked him how much money he makes or the details of his family business. In contrast, I was asked why my husband has not been given control of my flats and never even had a joint account with him.

What do you think was his problem with you?
The more I am away from the situation, I have instropected and calmed down and believe that not just Prince, but his whole family have a psycological problem. He lost his older brother to drugs and alcoholism about two years back. Prince, of course, has a very violent streak. If he gets angry for a certain thing, then he doesn't know what he is doing and you can't reason with him. It's difficult for a wife to create understanding with a man who, at the drop of a hat, will lose his temper. And if you don't get intimidated by his threats, then he will sexually and physically assault you. I lived in Nagpur for about four years during which time, I tried my best to adjust into the new family, a new city and a new way of life. I was not allowed to work and therefore, stayed at home. But the more I was adjusting to be a devoting caring wife and being a dedicated mother, the more and more acrimonious the environment seemed to be getting.

Being from the glamour world, I thought I was well-dressed, but if I was not dressed to his taste when we went out for evening get-togethers, he would denigrate me. I accepted it as my husband's critical view and tried to look better. If you denegrate your wife before she steps out of the house and physically assaultd her in the car and then expect her to have a smiling and happy face outside, how long can it work out? My in-laws would accuse me of not smiling in front of their relatives. I have been spiritual from the age of 13 and would visit my guru's ashram in Ganeshpuri, an hour-and-a-half from Mumbai. I started reading up books on relationships, did my meditation and gave it my best shot. They are Sikhs and even accused me of wanting to convert everyone into a Hindu.

Why did you resort to separation?
It reached a point where he was threatening to take my child away from me, was threatening me for life, and for money.

Why would he want money from you?
He would often travel to Mumbai on the pretext of work. I had seen messages from girls to him and had seen him behave in a certain way with girls at parties. So, to avoid my mind getting disturbed, I stopped questioning him about his work in Mumbai. I would tell my father-in-law that my friends in Mumbai had seen him in Mumbai with girls till five in the morning, drunk. He got socially involved with Amit Mehra (son of late Prakash Mehra) who offered him to be a co-producer in Zanjeer for a sum of `1 crore. I did not know much about the film business, but strongly advised him against it even though my father-in-law thought that I was the one instigating him to invest. There was a big spat between Prince and his father where Prince got shooters in civil clothes and had a huge fight with his father. Prince pressurised me to give him one of my flats for raising the money which I refused. Apparently, he had access to one of his father's accounts from where he did transfer some money to Amit's account. (Reportedly, Amit Mehra too ran into trouble with his brothers as he was unable to pay up the money for the title of Zanjeer). My husband went berserk threatening me, my parents and his father to give him the money. I had no choice but to leave my matrimonial home and come back to Mumbai to my parents. But Prince continued his threats to me and many of my relatives.

He would say, 'We are powerful people and know how to buy out the judiciary. All the ministers are in our pockets, I will get your entire family killed in accidents.' Inspite of his threats, we tried to reason with his parents if he could sit down and discuss it. I always tried to calm him down and find a way to deal with it. I remember his parents also thought that due to his drugs and alcohol problem, he too, had a psychological problem and also went to a counsellor. The only strength that kept me going is my guru's teachings, which helped me let go and forgive.

Is he attached to your son?
He was not involved as a father. Neither during my pregnancy nor after Ahhreyn was born. He physically traumatised and manhandled the child, which is never in favour of the welfare of a kid. He has abused me mentally, socially and emotionally and would yell at me in front of the kid throwing him around. He calls even now from different numbers abusing me and my parents and threatening me but has not once asked about him.

Were your parents supportive of you?
Initially, they were not and always pushed me to adjust. But he would say to my parents, 'If your daughter does not please me, then I will go out and do what I want to'. Their family has a tradition of having mistresses. My parents were summoned to Nagpur several times and were told about how they did not give adequate gifts during my marriage. They have a fleet of cars, but still I was accused of not bringing my car from Mumbai. It's never about the money, it was about the control and making me lose my independence. Once my parents were also with me, that too bothered them. Even though my sister-in-law had two maids, I was not given a maid for four years and would do everything for my son myself.

Where do you stand today emotionally?
I wish I had found this one moment of courage during those four years. You go through so much abuse. In every profile of an abuser you will find that the woman is always made to feel guilty and she is told that she deserves the treatment she has received. You feel psychologically paralysed. My spirituality and my son are the only two things that have helped me keep my sanity. In Nagpur, I was always gripped by fear and would fear seeing the watch turn 12 knowing that he would get up and start misbehaving. I want my son to see me strong and will fight for my son's rights and mine against people who think that they can buy off the judiciary and the ministry in this country and can intimidate a woman who has a public image by trying to defame her. I have faith in the judiciary and stand as a spiritually strong woman with no malice, anger or resentment against Prince or his family. I have threats to my life and the life of my son. Being a mother has transformed me from being a headstrong person to a loving person. We recently received an application that my mother-in-law is going through chemotherapy. I have reached a state of forgiveness and compassion and have told the cops that given that she is an elderly person, I don't want to inconvenience her in any way. Prince is an MBA and has worked at JP Morgan in New York and lived in the US for 10 years. Yet inspite of his education and the restraining orders from the High Court on July 4th, 2012, restraining him from talking to the media against my image, we continue to live in the fear of his threats on our lives.

7 Mistakes Clorox Made in Taking a Swipe at New Dads

Clorox, makers of bleach and many other consumer products, just came out with a clever article called “6 Mistakes New Dads Make.” The article gleefully tells us that “Like dogs or other house pets, new Dads are filled with good intentions but lacking the judgment and fine motor skills to execute well.” And that’s just in the first paragraph. The rest of the article is so condescending and insulting that it’s hard to know where to start tearing it apart. So, in no particular order, here are 7 colossal mistakes Clorox made by publishing that article.

1. They’re alienating potential consumers. With $5.5 billion in annual sales, you’d think that Clorox would have noticed that men–especially dads–are accounting for a growing share of household purchases. That’s true in traditional households (whatever that means), but it’s doubly true in households where at-home dads are making the majority of day-to-day purchasing decisions, and in single-dad-headed households–a fast-growing demographic–where dads are making 100% of the purchases. Even if Clorox used the ridiculously outdated statistic that women account for 80% of purchasing, that still leaves 20%–a whopping $1.1 billion worth of Clorox products that men are buying. $1.1 billion that Clorox is apparently willing to walk away from. I’m sure Clorox shareholders aren’t going to be too happy that the company just played Russian Roulette with a fifth of its annual sales. And lost.
2. They’re alienating existing customers. I’ve done a lot of research and writing about the portrayals of fathers in the media. And a number of advertising execs told me that they ridiculed dads because women don’t like to be ridiculed and would never stand for it. There’s another factor at work here, too. Fatherhood is a women’s issue. Moms want their partners to be more involved and they want to see images of involved men. Women, probably more than any other group, understand the power of media messages and advertising to shape our consciousness. Many countries have banned ultra-thin models because there’s a direct connection between images of the “ideal” woman and eating disorders. the words “mailmen” and “policemen” have been replaced by “mail carriers.” We talk about “the men and women of the armed forces,” despite the fact that women account for less than 20% of military. We do all this because we want our daughters to grow up knowing they can be and do anything that boys can. Bottom line, women are going to be pretty ticked that Clorox is telling everyone that dads are useless and stupid. Useless, stupid dads aren’t involved dads. And women want involved dads.
3. They’re falling back on old, old, old (and never accurate) stereotypes about men. According to Clorox, we’re too dumb to take their babies in from the rain. We’re so out of touch with life that we can’t tell whether our children’s clothes fit. We’re so blind that we won’t notice “the caked-on layer of dried yellowish crust (applesauce? sweet potato? Play-Doh?) surrounding Baby’s mouth and spattered baby food onto her bib.” And we’re so irresponsible that we’ll pop open a cold one, plop the baby down to eat dinner off the floor, and watch endless hours of inappropriate TV. (We’re also apparently so illiterate that we’d never think to “embrace parental sacrifice and crack open a book”).
4. They’re incredibly sexist. Imagine an article on a major financial services company’s website that spent a few hundred words talking about how girls aren’t good at math, how women can’t park cars or balance their checkbooks, that diamonds are a girl’s best friend and how all they want in life is to marry a rich guy, and how life was so much better when females were in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
5. They don’t understand irony. The idiot who wrote that article–and the team of even bigger idiots who signed off on it–clearly understand the power of media messages: Dads, they say, “have been inspired by raunchy comedies to bring babies to inappropriate places like casinos, pool halls, and poetry readings. None of these places are healthy for baby.” Okay, let’s assume that’s true. Wouldn’t it follow that those same dads might be so disturbed by how they’re being portrayed on the company’s website that they’d never want to buy a Clorox product again? Hmm.
6. They assume that all dads behave the same way and that all readers of their web content will find humor where there really isn’t any. It doesn’t take a marketing genius to tell you that treating a group as large as fathers or mothers or men or women as a single demographic is incredibly naive–and incredibly bad for the bottom line.
7. They underestimated how offended people would be. And by “people” I mean everyone except employees of Clorox.

Thanks for the memories, Clorox, because as of right now, any of your products I might have around the house are going to be exactly that. Tossed out and replaced with the Costco brand.

http://www.mrdad.com/blog-2/7-mistakes-clorox-made-insulting-dads/#comment-886

Clorox hate-speech ad smears fathers as clueless dogs; boycott Burt's Bees products

July 01, 2013

Have you had enough yet of the dad bashing frequently seen in the media? According to sitcoms and TV commercials, men are complete idiots who wouldn't even know how to put their own underwear on straight if it weren't for their wives telling them how to do things.

Clorox jumped on the man-bashing bandwagon this week with an online advertising campaign so highly offensive that if it had targeted blacks instead of dads, it would have been called the most extreme example of corporate racism ever witnessed.

The ad begins by claiming dads "lack the judgment and fine motor skills" to take care of children, and it compares dads to dogs and other house pets in their sheer stupidity.

The ad then goes on to identify the "6 mistakes new dads make," each of which is an outrageous slur against all men. It claims, for example, that dads will put their baby's clothes on backwards and not be able to figure out why they don't fit.

The ad goes on to explain that dads allow their babies to "eat off the floor," and then they plop them down on the couch to "watch reality TV shows."

Even worse, Clorox somehow believed it was entirely appropriate for its marketing campaign to include this: "Some new dads have been inspired by raunchy comedies to bring babies to inappropriate places like casinos, pool halls, and poetry readings."

Here's also a screen shot of the online ad, before it was pulled by Clorox without explanation:



"So, to summarize," says a media editorial, "new dads give our kids dirty food and Play-Doh to spread all over their faces while watching 'Kardashians,' then put them in backward summer clothes in freezing weather, oblivious to their cries en route to a poetry slam. But you can't blame us, because of our perpetually beer-soaked state and canine-level motor skills."

Yep, dads are stupid morons, says Clorox. And they think it's hilarious to shove that message in your face. It's all part of the man-bashing bandwagon we're witnessing across the mainstream media.

Clorox customers outraged

Actual comments on the Clorox website:

What the heck are you THINKING, Clorox?

As a woman, a single mother, and a feminist, I find this "article" disturbing on so many levels. Perpetuating unfounded gender stereotypes is deplorable and insulting. Always.

Me want to comment but me two dum. Me MUST be male may bE evn noo dad.

Has the Clorox marketing department been in a bomb shelter since the 50s or something?

What in the almighty hell were you thinking by making fathers out to be giant dummies who can't figure out which end of the baby a diaper goes on? It's 2013, for pete's sake - do you really not realize that marginalizing 50% of a household ISN'T okay anymore?

Insulting on so many levels. I agree with the other responses and dads who have all weighed in. It wasn't even the slightest bit funny and as a stay at home dad who makes all the household purchases I will be more inclined to go with another brand since you think so little of my ability to make sound decisions. How is that for good judgment?

Message to Clorox: Your advertising and marketing team members are a bunch of @sshats

Can you imagine the outcry if this ad had been about WOMEN?

Or BLACKS?

Or MEXICANS?

Or GAYS?

Here's how it would have read, using the exact words from Clorox:

"Like dogs or other house pets, BLACKS are filled with good intentions but lacking the judgment and fine motor skills to execute well." - Clorox.

"Prudence won't stop MEXICANS from relaxing with a brew and blaring inappropriate shows while baby stares in horror/awe/wonder at the colorful moving yell-box." - Clorox.

"Some GAYS have been inspired by raunchy comedies to bring babies to inappropriate places like casinos, pool halls, and poetry readings." - Clorox.

Suddenly the offensiveness of it all seems obvious, doesn't it? Now you see that the Clorox advertisement is classic hate speech against men.

These Clorox people are so clueless and hateful, they will probably soon run "Clorox n----r jokes" and laugh it up at the expense of innocent African Americans, too. I can already see the racist ads from the Clorox marketing team: "Hey n----rs, here's how to get your WHITES more WHITE!" (Because they're selling bleach, of course.)

If you find that last paragraph highly offensive, that's my whole point: Clorox did this to fathers of all colors, including blacks! And the company is so completely disconnected from reality that it somehow thought its hate speech was not just acceptable, but even entertaining. How sick is this, really?

Personally, I denounce racism, sexism, man bashing and corporate hate speech. I am never buying Clorox products again, and I recommend you join me in this boycott against corporate hate speech targeting men. I would take exactly the same position if Clorox attacked women, African Americans or anyone who is gay, too.

Boycott Burt's Bees, now owned by Clorox

Burt's Bees was purchased by Clorox in 2007. (Yes, it's true. Look it up.)

Media is announcing a boycott of all Clorox products, including Burt's Bees, for the remainder of 2013.

Stop rewarding this company with your dollars when they turn around and use that money to run hate speech ad campaigns that depict all dads as stupid morons.

Boycott Burt's Bees and Clorox beginning immediately.

Unless, of course, you support hate speech. Because while Clorox only targeted men in this ad campaign, tomorrow they may target women, or blacks, or short people, gays, or God forbid... undocumented immigrants!

Message to Clorox: Grow up! Get a clue! Targeting dads for hate speech is not acceptable, and it's not going to be tolerated in our society. Didn't you ever hear of something called the Civil Rights Movement?

Men are fed up with white males being the brunt of racist, gender-phobic insults like the one you recently publicized. Shame on you and may your upcoming financial losses remind you to think twice before attacking ANY group of human beings in future advertisements.

http://www.naturalnews.com/041027_Clorox_Burts_Bees_boycott.html#ixzz2XovMRqg9

The Law 498a (Part 2)

The Law 498a (Part 1)

Why this Judiciary (Kolaveri) Di

Very cool video, good music.

GoAir opts for female crew to save fuel

NEW DELHI: The falling rupee has claimed a new victim — the male cabin crew. Low cost carrier GoAir has decided to recruit only air hostesses from now on instead of the 'heavier' male flight pursers. The idea is to lighten the aircraft to reduce fuel burn because of increased operating costs.

GoAir currently has 330 cabin crew members, 40% of whom are males. Every additional kg on board costs Rs 3 per flight hour. With an air hostess weighing about 15-20 kg less than a male flight purser, Go expects to save about Rs 2.5 crore to Rs 3 crore annually.

The airline's 130-odd male flight pursers will keep flying but future cabin crew recruitment's will be all air hostesses  Go plans to induct about 80 aircraft over next seven years, for which it will recruit about 2,000 air hostesses and pilots.

"The rupee's fall has hurt the industry badly. All major expenses — aircraft leasing, spare parts and fuel costs — are linked to the dollar. The fall in exchange rate of a rupee costs us Rs 30 crore on an annual basis. We are looking at every possible way of cost-cutting to remain profitable," GoAir CEO Giorgio De Roni said.

With the rupee's free fall hiking operating costs, the airline has taken other steps to lighten its aircraft and improve fuel efficiency.

"We are reducing the weight on board our aircraft. The size of in flight magazines has been reduced. The potable water tanks are no longer being filled to capacity as only 35% to 40% of that water is actually used. Now the water tanks are filled 60%," De Roni said. Operational procedures have been revised with aircraft now doing single engine taxi to save fuel.

"Our new aircraft will have sharklets (wingtip devices) that will help in reducing fuel burn by 5%. From next year onward's  we will have sharklets installed in five of our existing planes as the remaining 10 will be phased out to have a young fleet," he said.

Woman, 36, bears child of 11-year-old boy

Case of 36 year old women raping a 11 year old boy, this shows the bias against men in society, women cannot be charged with Rape only Men. 

An 11-year-old boy fathered a child after sex with a school friend's 36-year-old mother.

Both the father and child are now understood to be in care after the principal at the boy's school raised the alarm.

The case has caused counsellors working in the area of child sexual abuse to highlight the lack of attention given to women as potential offenders.

It has prompted Justice Minister to step in saying she will seek more information on the law. "This case raises an important point. I will seek advice from officials on whether or not a law change is required."

And it has also highlighted disparity in the law of rape, which makes it impossible for a woman to be accused of the crime.

Present legislation stipulates the crime of rape applies only when men force sex. In contrast, women who force an unwilling partner to have sex face charges of sexual violation. Both carry a maximum sentence of 20 years but only men can be charged with rape.

The media has chosen not to name the South Auckland school to protect the privacy of the children - the baby and the father.

Child Youth and Family confirmed it was dealing with a case at the school and that it was before the courts. It refused to make further comment, as did police.

The principal said he was shocked when the child revealed the details.

The boy approached him in his office about two-thirds of the way through the 2012 school year and told the principal he had a disclosure to make.

"You won't be very happy with me," he recalled the boy saying. He said he had been having sex with his friend's mother "and it needs to stop".

The principal said the boy was "very aware" of the situation he was in and determined he wanted the contact to end.

The media was told that the contact between the boy and the woman began about April last year, when the boy was aged 11. The woman's son took a day off school and encouraged his friend to do likewise, spending the day at his home.

During the course of the day, the woman gave the boy beer to drink and then later took part in a sexual encounter with him.

The sexual contact continued for a number of months after the initial encounter, the media was told. The boy had turned 12 by the time the child was born. CYF took a baby into care about two months ago.

The principal confirmed the details. "We got CYF involved the minute we found out about it."

Emails exchanged with a Child Youth and Family social worker, since retired, confirm the agency was involved. The CYF worker said police would be investigating - but also said the woman denied the sexual contact.

Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse manager Ken Clearwater said if the case were proved, the woman should be held accountable for her actions. Making charges able to be brought dependent on the gender of the offender was wrong and the law should be changed. "It is a huge issue for us."

He said male victims of sex abuse carried out by women were equally as damaged as any other victim of rape.

"As a male you're supposed to enjoy it but we don't say that about young girls. Males are not seen as victims. The psychological damage is huge - and they carry extra shale because it's a woman and you're supposed to enjoy it."

Mr Clearwater said most abuse of the sort in this case was not reported. He said the way the boy disclosed to the principal underscored the way in which the abuse was perceived. By saying "you won't be very happy with me", Mr Clearwater said the boy appeared to believe he was the one who had acted wrongly.

Mr Clearwater said the psychological impact would expose the boy to added risk of alcohol and drug abuse, relationship problems, anger and other mental health issues.

The executive director of Rape Prevention Education, Dr Kim McGregor, said male survivors of sexual offending by women often felt the abuse they suffered was minimised by society. "Just because sexual violence has been perpetrated by a female doesn't make it any less violent."

Manukau-based family lawyer Jeremy Sutton said under the law the boy would not have rights to the child unless he was present at the birth. He said he would have to make a case for access. He also said there were exemptions from child support for victims of sexual offending.

Liggins Institute director Professor Wayne Cutfield, an expert in the development of children, said boys became fertile about halfway through puberty, which could begin as early as age nine. "The onset of puberty is a lot younger than people think."

Statistics New Zealand does not hold data on the ages of fatherhood, only of motherhood.

Delhi ex-Mayor's nephew sent to 14-day police custody for raping a foreign national

Former Delhi Mayor's nephew, arrested for allegedly raping a Russian woman and molesting a US national, has been remanded in 14-day judicial custody by a Delhi court.

Rajeev Panwar, nephew of former mayor Jayshree Panwar, was arrested on June 24 for the alleged offence committed in his flat rented to the foreigners. Rajeev, whose father is a government employee, was sent to Tihar jail till July 8 after he was produced before Metropolitan Magistrate Ankit Singla.

Rajeev, whose grandfather was a Member of Parliament and President Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee, was arrested on the complaint lodged by the American woman.

According to the complaint, on June 24 night Rajeev, after partying with the two alleged victims and husband of the US woman, raped the Russian woman and then trespassed in to the US woman's flat and molested her while she was sleeping.

Police sources said the two women were staying in the same building, but in different flats, owned by Rajeev. It further stated that Rajeev was invited by the trio on the night of the incident as he was a friend with the Russian woman.

Men who hold open doors for women are SEXIST not chivalrous, feminists claim

Men who open doors for women are guilty of 'benevolent sexism' according to a new study by feminist psychologists.

Helping the ladies choose the right computer as well as carrying their shopping are also signs of 'unseen' sexism in society, according to the report.

Referring to a group of men and women as 'guys' is also a no-no, says the research, meaning that even men who seem enlightened could be unknowingly committing daily acts of sexism.

It could also mean that women, too, are unaware of it but are unwittingly affected because it helps to create a culture of women being seen as the vulnerable sex who need a man's help.

Other examples of unseen sexism include calling women 'girls' but not referring to men as 'boys' and a man offering to do the driving on a long journey instead of a female partner.

Researchers from the Society for the Psychology of Women conducted a study among workers of both genders in America and Germany.

The volunteers were asked to keep diaries in which they were asked to note examples from a long list of both sexist and non-sexist incidents - without being told what the study was for.

The list included blatant acts of sexism such as referring to women as 'b****' or 'chick' or unwanted attention from men.

But it also included acts of 'benevolent sexism', even romantic statements from men about how they cannot live without a woman or how much they 'cherish' women, said the study.

The research comes just two days after a celebrity lawyer sparked outrage by accusing women of victimising men by dressing in a sexually provocative way.

And last week, scores of women took to the streets in London, marching on a 'slut walk' to challenge commonly-held attitudes that provocative dressing in women were linked with rape and sexual assaults.

Writing about the sexism research for the Psychology of Women Quarterly, described as a 'feminist, scientific peer reviewed' journal, authors Julia Becker and Janet Swim said men and women were to blame.

They wrote: 'Women endorse sexist beliefs, at least in part, because they do not attend to subtle, aggregate forms of sexism in their personal lives.

'Many men not only lack attention to such incidents but also are less likely to perceive sexist incidents as being discriminatory and potentially harmful for women.'

The study claims that both men and women are 'not aware of the overall prevalence and extent of sexism in their personal lives.'

But even though they are not aware of it, such regular and daily sexism only reinforces inequality and injustice, it is argued.

After keeping a diary, the volunteers were asked to look back at their records and decide which incidents they thought were very, moderately or not at all sexist.

Having done that both men and women were then much more aware of subtle forms of sexism that occurred on a daily basis.

It is only by being aware that such 'unseen' and benevolent sexism can be tackled, said the report.