And in academic news:

The class, since you ask, is Ecofeminist Poetry & Poetics. Taught by a Professor of English, Brian Teare, who will, we’re assured, situate relationships and encourage re-feeling.

Professor Teare will also reveal, in ways somewhat mysterious, how “chattel slavery, imperialism, industrialisation, settler colonialism, and militarisation” can be understood – and righteously tutted about – by listening to “birds, goats, willow oaks, and lichen.”

Those suitably intrigued will “listen across species.” Having forked over the suitable fee, of course.

Because an intersection had to be mentioned at some point, obviously. One must be seen wearing that rhetorical jewellery.

Readers are welcome to ponder whether the anticipated insights on “slavery, imperialism, industrialisation, settler colonialism, and militarisation” – arrived at via ecofeminist poetry and listening to lichen, a lifeform with no sound-producing anatomy – will be in any way surprising.

Professor Teare, pictured here, is the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship.

Not entirely unrelated.

See also, situated bodies and self-other paradigms.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Via pst314 in the comments, more wonders from the world of education:

You’re intrigued, I can tell.

The specific purpose, lest there be doubt, being classroom urination. Which is apparently a niche activity, a buzz of sorts. Among grown men who are entrusted to shape young minds.

Finding pleasure in the small things.

Perhaps a little too much pleasure.

A close call. Which I’m assuming was the point.

As so often, action was taken, belatedly, only after footage was provided by a concerned parent. Mr Champ’s colleagues and employers being, it seems, oblivious to the rumours of similar incidents – one might say school legends – by which a great many pupils had been entertained, before searching out confirmation and circulating said evidence via Snapchat.

Mr Champ is currently “on leave.”

In educational news:

No, wait. Let’s not rush to conclusions.

However, I think we can walk towards said conclusions at a fairly steady pace.

Since you ask,

Because naffly suggestive pseudonyms are exactly what you hope for at a kindergarten. In this case, at Mildred B. Poole Elementary School.

The educator in question, whose actual name has not been disclosed, took to social media to express his indignation at being asked not to wear his false tail at work. “People wanna be straight up pearl clutching bitches,” he said, in a teacherly manner. Among images of stabbed and bleeding teddy bears, and while describing himself as a “butt-sniffing wolf bitch.”

Parents also suggested that a cross-dressing kindergarten teacher wearing mini-skirts, a BDSM dog collar and black fishnet stockings was, all things considered, a tad inappropriate.

However, despite this assumed imperviousness to normal consequences, the educator in question has since been removed from his paid proximity to children.

Previously in the world of suboptimal hiring decisions.

Because every parent wants their 11-year-old children conscripted into the cross-dressing psychodrama of a mentally unstable teacher, a man thrilled by the thought of children seeing him in various states of undress while discussing “kink” and sexual positions.

“I’m not a predator,” said the teacher, Mr Lamere. “I’m just a woman who happens to be super tall and hot.”

If the incident linked above isn’t sufficiently concerning, I do have more:

A safe place in which he threatens to shoot them. With his collection of firearms.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links, etc.

Or, An Expert Speaks.

In which a Senate hearing on drug safety takes a somewhat surreal turn:

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO): “Can men get pregnant?”

Dr. Nisha Verma: “I’m not really sure what the goal of the question is.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO): “The goal is just to establish a biological reality… Can men get pregnant?”

Dr. Nisha Verma: “I take care of people with many… pic.twitter.com/decglkqHkX

— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) January 14, 2026

What struck me was the claim by Dr Nisha Verma, our adjunct assistant professor and “person of science,” that she would be “more than happy to have a conversation” – i.e., regarding whether men can get pregnant – while suggesting quite strongly that this is not in fact the case.

Unless, presumably, Dr Verma were given total and unilateral control of what questions may be asked, and of how they may be asked, of what wording may be used, and of which aspects of reality may be mentioned during any such exchange, should one be permitted.

On grounds that direct, very simple questions, asked seemingly in vain, are “polarising” and thus to be avoided.

It seems to me that if your political worldview, and in-group social status, very much depend on shunning certain fairly obvious questions, exposure to which induces wobbling and an urgent need for word salad, then that worldview has some, shall we say, structural issues.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Meanwhile, at Boston University, enormous thoughts are being had:

The she in question is Professor Megan Elias.

Oh, and she’s talking about food.

Obviously.

The question “what is queer food?” is, we’re told by Professor Elias, “a question that’s coming up a lot lately.” If only among academics desperate for an angle, an excuse for claiming a salary and wasting other people’s time. Academics much like Professor Elias.

Welcome to the bleeding edge of human mental activity.

Quite how one can edit “an illustrated guide to queer food,” complete with recipes, as Professor Ilias has, while simultaneously being unable to define what such a thing is, should it exist, is a question I leave to the reader.

Though a review of said book does offer a clue:

So “queer food,” it turns out, is not in fact a thing. It’s just whatever people who describe themselves as “queer” – a subset of insufferable misfits – happen to eat. While talking about themselves and how terribly “queer” they are.

Specifics of the professor’s course content are, as one might imagine, a little sketchy, beyond the obligatory claims of things being “disrupted” and “interrogated,” albeit in ways not altogether clear, or indeed convincing.

We are, however, informed that the credulous and self-absorbed will be invited to ponder what they might eat on a first date – because that’s totally worth those annual fees of $90,000 – and “how [their] food choice is representing [their] gender identity.”  Which is a thing that food should do, apparently.

Oh, and the aforementioned,

On grounds that being, say, “polyamorous” – i.e., a neurotic slag – may, in ways unexplained, determine how much you like lasagne or carrots.

Such is the sophistication of our times.

Those so inclined – and with nothing better to do – are welcome to reflect on yesterday’s dinner, or this morning’s breakfast, and then explain to the rest of the class how those foodstuffs “represent” your “gender identity.”

I’ll award points for contrivance.

Readers may recall our adventures in “queered” history, which is like history, but less so. And, as above, much more self-involved.