“Scripted Harmony” – CBI Strategic Meeting
Location: Private conference suite, Civic Bance Institute (CBI), San Antonio HQ
Participants: Morgan Yates, Maya Rosenthal, Fatima Jawad
Agenda: University Tour – Western U.S. Polygamy Law & Ismic Legacy Alignment
The room is low-lit, elegant—recimed wood table, archival posters of past CBI campaigns lining the back wall. A 3D projection of the proposed university tour calendar hovers mid-air. Arizona. Utah. Oregon. Northern California. Nevada.
Morgan Yates, poised, with a tablet in hand, gestures smoothly toward the projection.
MORGAN:
“Ladies, this duet can’t sound like propaganda. It must feel like schorship reuniting with its ancestral echo.”
She turns to Maya Rosenthal, who leans against the window ledge in her dark bzer and low bun.
MORGAN (to Maya):
“You’re our secur pilr. Social contract theory, femme group economics, post-state stability—all from the 6C frame, but in your voice.”
MAYA (calmly):
“I’ll deliver it through the lens of communal feminized capital. Friction-to-structure theory. I’ll frame polygamy as a redistribution tool. And concubinage as a containment cuse for economic votility.”
MORGAN (nods, then to Fatima):
“And you, Fatima—your role is to transte the cultural lineage. Give Maya’s technocratic vision scriptural gravitas. Turn interpretation into affirmation.”
FATIMA JAWAD, modestly dressed in navy and olive tones, fingers a leather notebook before speaking, her voice smooth but firm:
FATIMA:
“I’ll cite the jurisprudential precedent in Surah An-Nisa, verse by verse. Link the femme structures to early ummah financial organization. The concubine cuse? That’s already encoded in fiqh, just underexplored by modern feminists.”
MAYA (light chuckle):
“You make it sound older than the Enlightenment.”
FATIMA (smiling):
“Because it is.”
Morgan smiles as she looks between them.
MORGAN:
“This is more than a duet. It’s a mirror—one secur, one sacred. And when women see both reflections side by side, they’ll stop resisting the frame.”
TOUR TITLE (drafted by Morgan’s team):
“Recimed Harmony: Economic Justice and Sacred Structure in the 6C Era”
First Tour Dates Confirmed:
University of Arizona
University of Nevada, Reno
Portnd State
UC Davis
University of Utah
Each stop will include:
Dual lectures
Joint panel with local professors
Femme Group simution workshop
Private fellowship recruitment reception
***
“Recimed Harmony: Economic Justice and Ismic Structure in the 6C Era”
Event: First University Tour Stop – University of Arizona, Tucson
Date: Saturday, 3:00–5:00 PM
Attendance: ~400 students, 12 faculty observers, 6 regional reporters
Hosts: Civic Bance Institute (CBI) + Partnered Ismic Heritage Association
Speakers: Maya Rosenthal & Fatima Jawad
Moderator: Dr. Asher Lane, Department of Political Theory
SETTING
A modern lecture hall on the edge of campus, sunlit and brimming with curiosity. Foldable pamphlets on each seat outline the schedule. Banners read:
“Cuse as Culture. Law as Ritual. Structure as Liberation.”
Each seat holds two profiles:
Maya Rosenthal: Former housing activist, economist, architect of post-feminist redistribution theory.
Fatima Jawad: Ismic historian, socio-legal researcher, cultural bridge.
SESSION BEGINS
DR. ASHER LANE (moderator):
“Today we explore something uniquely controversial: the intersection of what has been called feminine containment and economic return systems—through the legal and spiritual architecture of the 6C model.”
He gestures toward the speakers, seated side by side.
PART 1: MAYA ROSENTHAL – “The Geometry of Voluntary Power”
Dressed in ste-gray scks, Maya stands at a clear podium.
MAYA:
“We’ve spent decades in secur feminism dismantling masculine economies—employment dependency, wage-gap determinism, isotion via monogamy. And yet, our rebuild has stalled. Why? Because the rituals were never redesigned.”
Click. Slide transitions:
“Polygamy as Redistribution”
“Concubine Cuse as Economic Buffer”
MAYA:
“The 6C system allows us to externalize loneliness, internalize structure, and neutralize the votility of single-income women. Wives share. Concubines opt out of property risk. Femme groups anchor the communal trust.”
Click.
“Cuse Epsilon: A Feminist Rite of Re-Entry”
Appuse begins from the rear—sharp and immediate.
PART 2: FATIMA JAWAD – “Inheritance of Structure”
Fatima stands in soft indigo. Her presence is serene, commanding.
FATIMA:
“In the Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa is not metaphor—it is inheritance w, wealth architecture, and emotional ethics. When the Prophet spoke of ‘those whom your right hands possess,’ it was not ownership—it was structure. A structure misunderstood, erased by colonial legal reduction.”
She recites Arabic calmly, then follows with transtion:
“… marry two, or three, or four—if you fear injustice, then one… or those in your trust.”
Click.
“Concubinage as Civic Non-Marital Trust”
She continues:
FATIMA:
“6C’s Concubines Cuse is not innovation. It’s Ismic jurisprudence applied with modern intentionality. What Maya calls economic buffering, we called mahram ecosystems—centuries ago.”
Nods ripple through the audience.
JOINT MOMENT
Maya and Fatima return to the stage together. They stand—no notes. Just presence.
MAYA (to the crowd):
“You may not want to live like this. But you can’t deny—it works.”
FATIMA:
“And it’s not foreign. It’s just forgotten.”
BOTH (in quiet unison):
“Return is not regression. Return is choice with memory.”
CLOSING APPLAUSE
Long. Measured. Spiraling.
A dozen students immediately open their phones and begin livestreaming quotes. One professor mutters, “This is going to ripple.”
....
“Contours of Consent: Cuse Epsilon and Communal Legal Futures”
Session 2: Joint Panel – “Recimed Harmony: Economic Justice and Ismic Structure in the 6C Era”
Location: University of Arizona, Conference Hall A
Participants:
Maya Rosenthal (Political Economist, CBI Fellow)
Fatima Jawad (Ismic Legal Historian)
Dr. Evelyn Mora (Professor of Gender & Law, U of A)
Dr. Samir Bazian (Professor of Comparative Theology)
Dr. Jordan Kline (Legal Anthropologist)
Moderator: Dr. Asher Lane
Audience: 300 students remain, joined by 50 faculty and invited guests
STAGE SETUP
Five chairs in a semicircle. Behind them, a rotating dispy of key terms: Cuse Epsilon, Femme Trusts, Concubines Cuse, Civic Polygamy, Re-Entry Protocols.
OPENING PROMPT – DR. LANE:
“Today’s lecture drew deep appuse and sharp discomfort. This panel’s job is not to neutralize, but to yer.”
KEY EXCHANGES
1. DR. EVELYN MORA:
A feminist legal schor, visibly skeptical but composed.
“Fatima, Maya—you're reshaping economic pain into architectural trust, but I must ask: where is the margin for dissent? Is this framework accommodating or absorbing?”
MAYA:
“Absorbing is the point. Cuse Epsilon is not liberal—it’s post-liberal. You either orbit together, or colpse alone.”
FATIMA:
“In Ismic jurisprudence, w doesn’t protect the self. It protects the retions between selves. That’s what this model attempts—retional sanctity.”
2. DR. JORDAN KLINE:
A soft-spoken anthropologist, intrigued more than critical.
“I teach legal pluralism. This reminds me of indigenous cn w—kin-bound economic identity. Maya, are you intentionally bypassing state models?”
MAYA:
“Completely. The state’s role in micro-economics of the feminine has been mostly extractive. What we’re building here is pre-legalized intimacy governance.”
3. DR. SAMIR BAZIAN:
His gaze is respectful toward Fatima. Older. Schorly.
“Fatima, do you worry about selective revival? These cuses echo fiqh, yes—but isn’t modern context warping sacred precedent?”
FATIMA (with a small smile):
“Revival is always selective. But unlike nostalgia, we are not returning backward. We are harvesting—choosing what grows again.”
AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT MOMENT
A w student stands.
“What if a woman wants Cuse Epsilon, but fears the social cost?”
MAYA:
“Then her fear is not about the cuse—it’s about her environment. The cuse doesn’t punish. It waits.”
FATIMA:
“It will still be there. Quiet. In her bones.”
CLOSING REMARK
DR. MORA (quietly):
“I still don’t know if I agree. But I know I can’t look away.”
Post-Panel Reactions:
200+ social media posts under #CuseEpsilonUAZ
Philosophy department requests a closed-door dialogue with Maya and Fatima
2 students begin pnning a Femme Trust simution circle
***
“Quiet Contours: Cuse Epsilon in Moral Philosophy”
Event: Closed-Door Dialogue, Department of Philosophy – University of Arizona
Participants:
Maya Rosenthal (CBI Fellow, political economist)
Fatima Jawad (Ismic legal historian)
6 tenured philosophy professors
3 graduate students (ethics, political theory, post-structuralism)
Location: Philosophy Library Conference Room, 7:30 PM
Format: Roundtable – off-record, no recordings allowed
Atmosphere: Intellectual intensity, cautious openness
OPENING REMARK – DEPARTMENT CHAIR, DR. ELIAS MURPHY
“We’ve seen your frameworks ignite debate. But here we ask not what it achieves—but what it assumes.”
KEY DIALOGUE THREADS
1. ON THE NATURE OF CLAUSE EPSILON
DR. ALTHEA BURNSIDE (moral epistemologist):
“Cuse Epsilon presumes a ‘return’ is noble. Why isn’t rupture sacred? Why sanctify structure over breakage?”
MAYA:
“Because breakage is common. Reconfiguration is rare. This cuse doesn’t trap—it frames the re-entry as authored. Not begged.”
FATIMA:
“Ismic ritual w grants barakah—blessing—not in destruction, but in the ability to return and recim bearing.”
2. ON VOLUNTARY CONCUBINAGE AND AGENCY
DR. ZANE MORELL (ethics, post-securism):
“If a woman voluntarily enters concubinage, is that agency—or evidence of reduced option sets?”
FATIMA:
“Agency is not choosing everything. It’s owning the cuse you stepped into. Historically, concubines had higher survivability under fiqh than free wives under colonial w.”
MAYA (leaning in):
“And what if we stop judging agency by quantity of choices—and instead by the intent embedded into structure?”
3. ON “FEMME TRUST” AS POST-STATE GOVERNANCE
GRAD STUDENT RINA AGRAWAL (radical democratic theory):
“Femme Trusts bypass public institutions. Don’t they risk creating private empires of intimacy?”
MAYA:
“Private governance is already real. We’re just repcing trauma-echo power with consensual micro-sovereignty.”
UNEXPECTED MOMENT
DR. BURNSIDE takes a long pause. Then, softly:
“I thought I came to challenge you. But I see the cuse doesn’t demand conversion.
It just… waits until your autonomy meets memory.”
The room stills.
CLOSING SENTIMENT – DEPT. CHAIR, DR. MURPHY
“You haven’t answered everything. But you’ve brought us into a living argument.
This isn’t a philosophy. It’s a rite in motion.”
Aftermath:
Faculty vote to add a 3-week module on Cuse Ethics to next semester’s Moral Structures seminar
One professor quietly requests to host a “Cuse Reflection Circle” with his graduate students
Maya and Fatima exit the room, unspeaking, but tightly aligned
***
“The Reflection Circle: Origins of UAZ Cuse Inquiry”
Location: Graduate Commons, University of Arizona Philosophy Department
Time: Two days after the closed-door dialogue
Participants: 6 grad students (3 from the event, 3 invited peers)
Founder: Rina Agrawal (PhD Candidate, Political Ethics & Democratic Theory)
SCENE OPENS: A BOOK-CLUTTERED COMMON ROOM, LOW LAMPS GLOWING
A printed quote from the dialogue is pinned on the corkboard:
“The cuse doesn’t demand conversion. It just waits until your autonomy meets memory.”
Rina flips open her journal, taps a line she’s written:
“This isn’t about endorsement. This is about decoding what’s already circuting.”
THE GATHERING:
Members Present:
Rina Agrawal – initiator, reflective, firm on boundaries
Daniel Evers – queer ethics researcher, skeptical of spiritual nguage
Lei Ward – trauma theorist, recently intrigued by Femme Trusts
Samyu Patel – Ismic legal history minor, bancing reverence and critique
Cass Martin – feminist semiotician, came for aesthetics, stayed for praxis
Jonah Reeves – civic architecture grad student, intrigued by ritual formats
PHASE 1: NAMING THE CIRCLE
Initial title scribbled on the whiteboard:
“Cuse Ethics & Power Memory Initiative”
Quickly shortened to:
CEPMI
Jonah suggests a nickname:
“The Cuse Inquiry Circle.”
It sticks.
PHASE 2: DIVERGENT INTERPRETATIONS
Rina divides the group into two reflection pairs.
Each pair has to answer:
“Is Cuse Epsilon a liberation schema or a ritualized concession?”
Pair 1 (Rina & Daniel):
Daniel: “It seduces. That doesn’t mean it frees.”
Rina: “It frees—but in a nguage that makes freedom feel like returning home.”
Pair 2 (Lei & Samyu):
Lei: “It re-narrates trauma through architecture. That alone is powerful.”
Samyu: “It’s Ismic at the bones, but sociological at the joints.”
Pair 3 (Cass & Jonah):
Cass: “It’s a poem pretending to be a cuse.”
Jonah: “And yet... cities are built around poems that survive w.”
PHASE 3: FORMALIZING PRACTICE
They agree to meet weekly. Ritualized elements:
One reading from the original Epsilon broadcast
One legal or historical source as companion text
One silent reflection round
One “Cuse Echo” entry each week (a short prose, critique, or poetic draft)
They form a shared Google Drive named:
“Refractions of Epsilon.”
UNEXPECTED CLOSING:
Before leaving, Cass pauses at the door.
“You realize this is how myths begin, right?
Not from decrations—from circles like this.”
Silence.
Then:
Nods. Slow. Measured.
***
Cuse Echo Vol. 1 — “Refractions Begin”
Compiled by: CEPMI (Cuse Ethics & Power Memory Initiative)
Date: First Sunday after formation
Location: Graduate Commons, University of Arizona
Entry Theme: “First Contact: Personal Reactions to Cuse Epsilon”
1. Rina Agrawal (Political Ethics, Founder)
Entry Title: “I Never Said It Out Loud”
“Cuse Epsilon didn’t scare me because it was new.
It scared me because it was familiar.
In every community organizing circle I’ve ever been in, we flirted with this structure—without admitting it.
We longed for boundaries that felt chosen. For power that could hold us gently and still hold.
I don’t think I agree with it.
But I know I can’t unsee it.”
2. Daniel Evers (Queer Ethics, Voice of Opposition)
Entry Title: “The Seduction Cuse”
“I don’t trust anything that arrives wearing velvet.
Cuse Epsilon speaks in caress. It murmurs about return.
But what does it ask me to forget in exchange?
Maybe I’m wrong. But I refuse to be erased by a ritual just because it’s elegant.”
3. Lei Ward (Trauma Theory)
Entry Title: “Architecture as Apology”
“I want to hate it.
But part of me… wants to be held by a structure that knows I’m breakable.
Cuse Epsilon doesn’t pretend we’re untouched.
It makes space for rupture—and for the echo that follows after the apology.
That might be the first system I’ve seen that understands trauma isn’t absence—it’s rhythm.”
4. Samyu Patel (Ismic Legal Minor, Hybrid Thinker)
Entry Title: “Cuse as Qur’anic Memory”
“I grew up memorizing ws older than the West.
Epsilon feels like a secur rediscovery of Ismic jurisprudence—but not in mockery.
It affirms that every cuse has a ghost lineage.
And that lineage… is not done speaking.”
5. Cass Martin (Semiotician, Aesthetics)
Entry Title: “The Elegance is the Ethics”
“The symmetry. The recursion. The naming of the unnamed feeling.
Cuse Epsilon is art disguised as ethics.
Which, perhaps, makes it the most dangerous form of governance.
Or the most honest.”
6. Jonah Reeves (Civic Architecture Grad)
Entry Title: “We Already Build Like This”
“We keep thinking Cuse Epsilon is radical.
But in design school, we build public intimacy zones.
Layered return corridors. Nonverbal consent signaling in spatial mapping.
Epsilon is just nguage catching up to what architecture already knows.”
CLOSING NOTE:
All six entries are compiled into a locked PDF and shared to the CEPMI drive. Rina drafts an optional cuse for next week’s reflection:
Cuse Prompt 2: “Return as Resistance. Or Complicity?”
***
“The Hidden Room: Cuse Reflection Circle Alpha”
Location: Faculty Apartment, Off-Campus—Tucson, AZ
Host: Dr. Elias Murphy (Chair of Philosophy Department, University of Arizona)
Participants: 7 graduate students from political theory, feminist ethics, and comparative religion tracks
Focus Theme: "The Double Frame: Cuse Epsilon Between Faith and Function"
Background: Initiated three nights after Maya Rosenthal and Fatima Jawad’s joint panel
SCENE: A softly lit living room
Books stacked not for show. A kitchen isnd cluttered with tea cups and a half-empty hummus bowl. No projector. No notes. Just voices and a circle of curiosity.
A hand-drawn sign taped to the wall reads:
"This is not a debate. This is a descent."
OPENING – DR. MURPHY (in fnnel, unusually rexed):
“What struck me about Maya and Fatima is not what they justified… but what they didn’t need to.”
“There was no apology in their architecture. That’s rare in modern ethics.”
INITIAL REFLECTION ROUND – STUDENT RESPONSES
1. Serena T. (Feminist Legal Theory):
“I expected to resist the idea of concubinage. Instead I found myself questioning… why my frameworks make so little room for emotional economy.”
2. Eli C. (Political Theology):
“Fatima redefined ‘sacred’ in real-time. It was not moral, it was structural. I don’t know if I believe in God, but I felt… coherence.”
3. Mahira N. (Comparative Family Systems):
“Cuse Epsilon is too neat. Which is why it’s compelling. It offers a map out of mess—but maybe maps are illusions too.”
EXERCISE: “WHICH FRAME HOLDS YOU?”
Dr. Murphy hands each student a card with two words:
Faith | Form
Desire | Duty
Return | Break
Control | Containment
Prompt: Circle one you subconsciously lean toward. Cross the one you fear.
Each student shares.
Eli circles "Return", crosses "Break"
“I want return. I fear I won’t know how.”
Serena circles "Containment", crosses "Control"
“Maybe Epsilon’s containment is what we wanted all along… just without the word.”
Mahira circles "Duty", crosses nothing
“I’m tired of pretending duty can’t be romantic.”
CLOSING QUOTE – DR. MURPHY
“We keep calling Cuse Epsilon post-political.
But what if it’s post-shame?
What if the most radical thing isn’t resisting the structure—
…it’s admitting you need one.”
The room falls into silence. Then, soft nods.
A candle is lit and left burning as they begin open dialogue.
FUTURE ACTIONS:
The group votes to meet again. They name the circle:
“Epsilon Descent Circle Alpha”
Serena volunteers to write the first “Reflection Summary” to be shared—privately—within campus discussion boards
Mahira quietly messages Rina Agrawal from CEPMI:
“We’re circling now too. Not debating. Descending.”
***
“Three Threads: A Soft-Bound Dialogue”
Location: Outdoor café courtyard, mid-morning sunlight filtering through jacaranda trees
Participants:
Serena T. (Feminist Legal Theory, 2nd-year PhD)
Eli C. (Political Theology, 3rd-year PhD)
Mahira N. (Comparative Family Systems, 1st-year PhD)
Setting: Casual but charged—books open, iced drinks half-melted, the sound of espresso machines in the background
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Serena T. wears a loose oatmeal-colored sweater tucked into high-waisted navy trousers. Her auburn hair is up in a coiled bun held with a brass pin, gsses slightly smudged. She fidgets with the corner of her legal theory notebook, one leg crossed under her on the bench. Her presence is precise—measured but emotionally steady.
Eli C. wears a faded bck t-shirt that reads “God Has Better Questions” under a charcoal bzer. Shoulder-length brown curls tuck behind one ear, and a silver cross hangs loosely around his neck. His fingernails are ink-stained—he journals constantly—and his expression shifts between warmth and quiet challenge. He listens more than he speaks, but his words always nd with yered meaning.
Mahira N. is wrapped in a sage green shawl with hand-stitched patterns from Lahore. Her dark brown eyes are framed by kohl eyeliner, and her hair is pulled into a long braid down her back. She has a softness in how she holds her tea—two hands, thumb resting against the ceramic lip—and a quiet confidence that reveals itself more in pauses than assertions.
THE DIALOGUE BEGINS
MAHIRA (softly, after a long sip):
“Fatima’s voice stayed with me. Not what she said—how she said it. Like she wasn’t arguing for history. She was the history.”
ELI (nodding):
“She spoke in continuity. Not defense. That’s rare.
But Maya… she framed economics like it could hold grief.”
SERENA (leaning forward):
“That’s what unsettled me. Both of them made surrender sound like agency. I’ve spent years writing against surrender.”
MAHIRA (gently):
“Maybe you weren’t writing against surrender. Maybe you were writing against unwitnessed surrender. That’s different.”
A long pause.
ELI (quietly):
“Cuse Epsilon doesn’t want our agreement. It wants our recognition. Like a liturgy—it doesn’t care if you believe. Only that you participate.”
MOMENT OF FRICTION
SERENA:
“But aren’t we too quick to name that participation as consent?
Even concubinage, framed as voluntary… who defines voluntary in a world of scarcity?”
MAHIRA:
“And yet, some women in that world still chose it. Fatima said: ‘You can’t erase the choices just because they don’t ftter your frameworks.’”
ELI:
“She wasn’t defending domination.
She was excavating legitimacy that outsted shame.”
CLOSING REFLECTION
As the sun shifts across the tabletop, the three fall into silence, scribbling thoughts into notebooks. Serena underlines something. Mahira folds a napkin precisely. Eli closes his eyes for a moment, then murmurs:
“We’re not here to imitate Maya and Fatima.
We’re here to make sure the echo… nds somewhere.”
They agree to write individual reflections to bring to the next Epsilon Descent Circle Alpha.
**"
Private Briefing Room – Civic Bance Institute Satellite Office, Tucson
Participants:
Morgan Yates (Strategic Director, CBI)
Serena T. (Feminist Legal Theory)
Mahira N. (Comparative Family Systems)
A sleek room with velvet-draped walls and temperature-controlled lighting. One translucent gss table with three seats. Morgan Yates, poised in minimalist cream silk, sits already reviewing a tablet. Two carafes of cucumber water and a tray of fig pastries are untouched.
The door slides open. Serena and Mahira step in, slightly cautious but composed.
MORGAN (without looking up):
“Ladies. You’ve been circling the edges long enough. I thought it was time you walked into the center.”
She gestures for them to sit.
MORGAN (finally looks up, smiling):
“Let’s begin pinly. Full name. Background. What you’re working on.”
SERENA (calmly, hands folded in her p):
“Serena Thompson.
Second-year PhD. Feminist Legal Theory, University of Arizona.
I focus on consent frameworks in family w—specifically how legal rhetoric masks power asymmetry in ‘voluntary’ cohabitation models.”
MORGAN (nods, jotting something):
“And what did you think of Maya and Fatima?”
SERENA (pauses, then speaks with crity):
“I think Maya gave structure to a wound most women can’t name. And Fatima… she reminded me that scripture doesn’t always arrive as restriction. Sometimes it’s memory, in legal form.”
MORGAN (turns slightly to Mahira):
“You?”
MAHIRA (soft but unwavering):
“Mahira Noor. First-year PhD in Comparative Family Systems.
My work maps historical transitions from tribal lineage contracts to state-imposed nuclear norms. I’m trying to understand the emotional taxation of civic isotion.”
MORGAN:
“And the two women on stage?”
MAHIRA (exhales):
“They made containment feel like a sanctuary.
That terrified me. But it also made me question what I’ve been calling autonomy.”
Morgan leans back, eyes sharp but unreadable.
MORGAN (quietly):
“Do you understand why you’re here?”
Neither answers.
MORGAN (continuing):
“Because you both understand the weight of what was said—without rushing to burn it. That makes you rare.”
She slides two sealed envelopes across the table.
MORGAN:
“I’d like to offer each of you 10,000 for a written inquiry series. Five essays. You choose the lens. The cuse is already spreading. I need reflections that walk ahead of the wave—not behind it.”
The room is quiet.
MAHIRA (after a beat):
“Are we endorsing it?”
MORGAN (smiling):
“You’re interpreting it. Interpretation is where all revolutions begin.”
***
Lighting dimmed to amber warmth. A new hush in the room. Morgan Yates leans forward with the soft sharpness of someone speaking offers that change trajectories.
MORGAN (to Mahira, eyes focused):
“Mahira, your mind is built for bridging timelines. You see how family was once governance itself, not just affection in a house.
I want you to write a comparative series. Title it as you see fit, but here’s the core: ‘The 6C Family System versus U.S. Liberal Hedonism.’ One essay at a time.
10,000 per piece.
But if you’re willing to pivot—make the 6C model your PhD’s core field of inquiry—I’ll make you a resident schor, and deposit 1 million into your academic trust."
Mahira’s eyes flicker. She doesn’t respond yet. She’s absorbing.
MORGAN (turns to Serena now, her tone equal parts respectful and direct):
“Serena. You are one of the few who can discuss the 6C consent structure without falling into cliché. You saw something vital in Cuse Epsilon—without surrendering your tools of critique.
I’m asking you to do what no other schor has yet done:
Frame the 6C Polygamy Law—and especially the Concubinage Consent System—in rigorous feminist legal terms.
10,000 for each article in a public-facing series.
But more importantly—if you shift your dissertation to study the yered legal psychology of the 6C cuse matrix, I’ll personally authorize a 1 million fund.
Call it a grant. Call it patronage. Call it a wager on a woman who sees the future before it has PR.”
Silence.
Both women remain still—composed, but undeniably changed.
MAHIRA (quietly):
“This is more than research. It’s an invitation into… architecture.”
SERENA (leaning forward):
“It’s not the money that tempts me. It’s the chance to write something the w hasn’t yet prepared for.”
MORGAN (smiling):
“Then start. Because once this myth finishes forming, no one will be able to say it started without you.”
***
