The remarks he got in trouble for were (I think obviously) not just “making a joke of labeling himself as sexist”.
Here is the totality of what that article says he said (note: I wouldn’t much trust the Daily Express to report anything accurately, but let’s assume they’ve got it right), in order:
It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked speak to women scientists.
Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab:
you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry.
Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?
Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea.
And woman scientists played, without doubt an important role in it.
Science needs women and you should do science despite all obstacles,
and despite monsters like me.
So, sure, there’s an element of self-deprecation there. But that’s not all there is, and he isn’t just making fun of himself, and I really don’t think it’s surprising or unreasonable that some people were upset or that he had to resign an honorary professorship in consequence. (The point of making someone an honorary professor is that their mere name will bring glory to what you do. If they become more famous for saying something stupid and/or unpleasant than for their impressive scientific work, they’re not doing that job.)
I do think some of the uproar about what he said was overheated, but I don’t think any of that would have been different if he’d had a recording of the whole of what he said. It’s not like it wasn’t obvious from the start that he was trying to be funny.
If the article is right then Connie St Louis says that if the words “Now seriously” would have been said, it would have created a different vibe. If someone would reveal a recording that contains those words her case would therefore fall apart.
The point of making someone an honorary professor is that their mere name will bring glory to what you do.
No, it’s also to provide advice and give occasional guest lectures. His involvement was likely more than just giving his name.
The remarks he got in trouble for were (I think obviously) not just “making a joke of labeling himself as sexist”.
Here is the totality of what that article says he said (note: I wouldn’t much trust the Daily Express to report anything accurately, but let’s assume they’ve got it right), in order:
So, sure, there’s an element of self-deprecation there. But that’s not all there is, and he isn’t just making fun of himself, and I really don’t think it’s surprising or unreasonable that some people were upset or that he had to resign an honorary professorship in consequence. (The point of making someone an honorary professor is that their mere name will bring glory to what you do. If they become more famous for saying something stupid and/or unpleasant than for their impressive scientific work, they’re not doing that job.)
I do think some of the uproar about what he said was overheated, but I don’t think any of that would have been different if he’d had a recording of the whole of what he said. It’s not like it wasn’t obvious from the start that he was trying to be funny.
If the article is right then Connie St Louis says that if the words “Now seriously” would have been said, it would have created a different vibe. If someone would reveal a recording that contains those words her case would therefore fall apart.
No, it’s also to provide advice and give occasional guest lectures. His involvement was likely more than just giving his name.