Not misogyny at all

According to Wikipedia (on 2015-06-13):
On 9 June 2015, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Tim Hunt
gave a lecture at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul,
entitled "Creative Science — Only a Game?",
in which he made controversial comments about the problems he perceived with female scientists.
He said:

“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.”

Hunt concluded that male and female scientists distract each other too much and should instead work in seperate laboratories.

2015-06-11-NYT-nobel-winning-sexism-in-the-lab

Nobel-Winning Sexism in the Lab
New York Times Room for Debate, 2015-06-11

The Nobel laureate Tim Hunt was widely ridiculed, and had to resign an honorary professorship, after calling female scientists overly emotional and a romantic distraction.

Is such quick denunciation a sign of progress in a field traditionally known for its sexism? Or does the laureate’s casual misogyny show that gender discrimination persists?

---

Back to comments by KHarbaugh:
So the New York Times, in the overview of its debate that appeared on the NYT's web page on 2015-06-12 at 3 PM EDT,
described Hunt's remarks as "misogyny".
(By the way, from the short description of the views of the six people the NYT's has chosen to represent a "debate",
I can see none who defend what Hunt said.
Some debate.
But that really is what you can expect from the Times and much of the media:
Only people who agree with their editorial position.
Their constant effort to make sure that only PC positions are presented in a positive light.)

But wait a minute.
Let's see what the definition of misogyny is, at least according to Wikipedia (at the same date):

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.

Do you see any hatred or dislike of women or girls in Hunt's remark?
I certainly don't.
There certainly can be room for debate as to the extent to which his description is true.
Surely it is true in some situations (do even the feminists deny that?)
while not true in some other situations.
Clearly, at least to me, he did not intend to say that all female scientists cry when they are criticized.
But, although I have no personal knowledge of Hunt's truthfulness,
I certainly do not doubt that he had some empirical experience on which he based his remark.
It was perhaps unfortunate that his remark, as stated, appears to be ascribing universality to what he describes.
But even if he had really meant to say that about all women, and their male coworkers,
would that really indicated hatred or dislike of women or girls?
I think not.

The main point to take away is this:
Many people are defining things down.
By that I mean,
there is a very big difference between
"hatred or dislike of women or girls"
and saying
"male and female scientists distract each other too much and should instead work in seperate laboratories".
One needn't hate or dislike women to agree with the latter statement.
So why apply the term "misogyny" to it?

But that's just par for the course with the New York Times in particular
and much of the PC community in general.
E.g.,
"anti-Semitism" being defined down from
"hatred or dislike of Jews"
to
"opposition to the policies of Israel",
or making the very correct observation that
"many Jew have their views, opinions, and actions
affected by pressure from fellow Jews,
appealing to their common Jewish interest".

If you don't believe that, see, for example,
"Hillel Guidelines for Campus Israel Activities",
which are discussed in the New York Times in
"Members of Jewish Student Group Test Permissible Discussion on Israel" (2013-12-29) by Laurie Goodstein,
which contains the following:
"Hillel, whose core mission is to keep the next generation of Jews in the fold,
says that under its auspices one thing is not open to debate:
Those who reject or repudiate Israel have no place."

This question of the effect of one's Jewish identity on one's views
became an issue at Stanford University:
Student Coalition at Stanford Confronts Allegations of Anti-Semitism (2015-04-14).

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with asserting, for example,
that Alan Dershowitz's views are no doubt colored by his Jewishness.
You don't have to hate or dislike Jews
to note that they often work together to advance their interests.
You just have to be willing to tell the truth.
It seems to me that what is really being "hated or dislike" is the truth being spoken in this case.