The offensive part that is being mocked was not the description that women fall in love with men or vice versa.
The offensive part was that both of those were described by Hunt as parts of his "problem with girls...when they are in the lab".
That is, Hunt says:
1. Women fall in love with men (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women
2. Men fall in love with women (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women
This can be read two ways depending how you parse it.
That is, Hunt says:
1. Women fall in love with men (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with coed labs
2. Men fall in love with women (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with coed labs
So, either reading is sexist, though it is true that there are different ways in which it can be sexist.
He didn't say that.
>Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying".
With the above correction you've shown your political standing. Of course you see it as mockery. Most people are going to see it as them crying about his "sexism" over something he didn't actually say (that they were distractingly sexy).
If people were mocking him - more men would be mocking him for the second statement that they are "irresistible" to women and their bravado gets them all the ladies and they are having troubles working because of all the sex they are getting. But they aren't crying on Twitter because he said that women fall in love with them.