It's interesting that everyone defending this old coot is just memory-holing the clearly misogynistic comment "if you a criticize a woman in the lab, they cry" and are choosing to only mention the comments that are more easily defensible as a "joke"
The way I read this; when he says "you", it's the generic you: he's talking about the "chauvinist monsters" like himself, and it's in the context of three particular ways in which his own failings prevent him working with women.
He forms and encourages inappropriate emotional relationships with his female colleagues and it affects his ability to give criticism of their work effectively.
Now you have the right to read that a different way; but please respect that others are not just "memory-holing" misogynistic comments for some reason or another.
I'm not defending him: he definitely has a problem with his attitude to women, it sounds like it might absolutely create a hostile workplace, and it's almost certainly inappropriate to be talking about the subject in such a light-hearted manner - but this is fundamentally a mea culpa rather than a criticism of women in science.
Almost every single one of the posters defending this misogynistic behavior are just deliberately leaving out his most incendiary and misogynistic remark and instead focusing on comments he made that are less objectionable.
Why do these people deserve "credit"? Am I suppose to believe only focusing on the least objectionable comments to paint him as some unfairly maligned martyr is just an accident?