Mhh... I don't deny that climate change is likely from atmospheric pollution; I'm not convinced we'll see warming rather than cooling or that sea levels will rise. The Antarctic ice lens is actually thickening due to local subclimates, reversing a 6000-year trend. Likewise, when my parents got divorced, I was quite angry but I faced it directly.

As for Conrad's comments, however: I can't find the original post, so I'm uncertain of the context in which they were written; however, I'm confident that the original post must have existed and was not merely created to make a good quote. Still, it may well have been withdrawn by the writer, and it would be most impolite of me to comment on any statement that was retracted. Moreover, I cannot be said to speak for him, whether on a personal level or as a candidate.

What I can do is answer the question as phrased: "...do you agree with his philosophy as pertains to women or not?" The best way to answer this, it seems to me, is to state my own philosophy regarding the relevant issues.

The first of these is judging by a group rather than by the individual. To make specific judgments regarding individuals based only on empiric knowledge of the group, especially without any theoretical foundation and also when individual evidence is readily available, is both unwise and potentially offensive. When such data is unavailable, one can only judge empirically and from experience; in those cases, one is well-advised to keep one's conclusions tentative and to express them tentatively or not at all.

The second is of women. Now, I have known several women who quite closely fit the description in the text at hand (and I'm sure I've read something similar to this in a classical work); in my experience, they tend to be members of the immature and irresponsible groups, those for example without meaningful work experience. As well, many of these are skilled at little other than manipulation and exploitation.

And yet, I've also known many that are intelligent, competent, kind and generous. Some of my most intelligent friends happen to be female, and I greatly enjoy social intercourse with them (not to be confused with forms of intercourse of which a gentleman ought not speak). Again, this is mere empiricism and should not be confused with hard data or general theory.

As a general statement, then, I would say that I believe women to be much like men, with the group generally consisting of the useless and the useful intermingled - ofttimes within a single individual. Both genders are subject to the chemical interference of their bodies, not merely the hormonal influence but also blood sugar levels and the impact of regularity of excretion, among myriad other factors.

Again, I cannot speak for Conrad; could I, I would not. He's extremely capable of speaking for himself. But my support for his candidacy is undiminished by this; after all, the original post no longer exists, and I must judge by what is, not by what was or what might be.

============

On mass composting: It's likely that there's a compact technological solution to this difficulty, one that deals with convenience and with the smell. It simply hasn't been invented yet.