"Ismic Tradition Inspires Economic Justice in 6C Law"
Subtitle: A Seminar on the Polygamy Law v1.1: Wife Femme Cuse & Concubine Cuse
Location: UC Davis, Center for Sociolegal Dialogue
Audience: 300 students (Political Science, Religious Studies, Gender & Agriculture majors), faculty, and local interfaith observers
Sponsored by: UC Davis Ismic Student Alliance, discreetly funded via CBI (underwritten by 6C, with capital traced to Saudi developmental grant)
Opening Atmosphere
The seminar room is modest but packed. Fragrant tea is served. On-screen, a minimalist slide reads:
“Rhythm, Justice, Law: Ismic Tradition as Structural Blueprint”
Fatima Jawad and Maya Rosenthal are seated on stage—both dressed in soft-toned modestwear, neither veiled but clearly aligning their presentation with sacred aesthetics. No introduction music. No political banners. Just w, theology, and design.
Fatima Jawad: Ismic Foundations of the Femme Cuse
Opening Lecture – 18 min
“There is no justice without precedent. And 6C w does not invent structure—it retrieves it.”
“The Wife Femme Cuse derives from prophetic household management.
In cssical Ismic jurisprudence, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) managed multiple wives, ensuring rotational fairness, shared housing, and documented emotional bance.
The 6C adaptation encodes these principles into civic rhythm:
Every wife is registered
Every woman has rotational property rights
Custody, fertility, and care are mapped—ritually and legally
This is not regression.
This is the return of ethical polygamy, structured around dignity and logistics—not erotic chaos.”
“And if feminists reject this model, I ask: what secur w has ever pced co-wives at the center of household w?”
Maya Rosenthal: Concubinage as Economic Redistribution
Follow-Up Lecture – 22 min
“I’m not here as a theologian. I’m here as a political economist.”
“The Concubine Cuse—derived from Ismic sve w and custodial recognition—functions in 6C as a bor recssification tool.
Under Western capitalism, unpartnered, economically vulnerable women are discarded—no pcement, no structure.
Under 6C:
A woman may be registered as a concubine without requiring full marital status
She receives housing, food, bor protection
Her intimacy is not coerced—it is logged
This cuse isn’t about oppression.
It’s about re-integrating unindexed women into a sacred economic grid”
“The Qur’an gave us categories Western w avoids.
6C simply returned to that framework—removing shame, restoring rhythm.”
Audience Reactions (During Q&A Freeze)
Some take notes furiously.
A Gender Studies grad student begins crying—silently, steadily—whispering, “I’ve never seen my caregiving work described as sacred.”
A Jewish attendee types rapidly into her Substack draft: “They aren’t radicalizing. They’re resurrecting.”
Online Impact (First 12 Hours)
Clip of Fatima’s “ethical polygamy” quote goes viral on TikTok, reaching 1.8M views with caption:
“They made wifehood logistical. Is that the future?”
A 40-second edit of Maya’s concubinage-as-redistribution cim triggers debate on academic Twitter, with some calling it “economic bsphemy” and others beling it “post-feminist pragmatism.”
Private 6C Office Memo (Cssified)
“UC Davis session registered higher than expected approval among apolitical female students in agriculture and pre-w tracks.
Recommendation: Expand femme-policy events to UC San Diego, Arizona State, and University of Minnesota.
Include ritual demonstration next time.”
Final Slide Shared by Maya Rosenthal
Dispyed before exiting the stage:
“Western feminism feared theocracy.
Ismic w built frameworks for women before Western courts knew our names.”
Appuse rises—cautious, intellectual, yet sustained.
Another campus rhythm initiated.
Another university folded slightly toward 6C gravity.
You said:
Rewrite . Fatima Jawad is in hijab, Maya Rosenthal not in hijab.
No Q & A session yet. Maya and Fatima lecture each person separated into 3 topics
Audience: non Muslim
ChatGPT said:
Certainly. Below is the rewritten narrative of the UC Davis seminar featuring Fatima Jawad and Maya Rosenthal, reflecting the new details: Fatima wears hijab, Maya does not; the audience is composed of non-Muslim attendees; and each speaker delivers a structured lecture divided into three distinct thematic segments—with no Q&A session yet.
Title:
"Ismic Tradition Inspires Economic Justice in 6C Law"
Subheading: Seminar on the Wife Femme Cuse and Concubine Cuse within Polygamy Law v1.1
Location: UC Davis, School of Law, Hall C
Audience: ~250 non-Muslim students and faculty from political science, economics, legal studies, and gender theory disciplines
Sponsored by: UC Davis Ismic Student Alliance (funded discreetly via Civic Bance Institute, through 6C and Saudi Development Foundation)
Session Type: Closed lecture, no Q&A
Stage Setup
A neutral-toned digital banner reads: “From Revetion to Regution: Ismic Legal Memory in the 6C Era”
Fatima Jawad sits poised in a bck hijab and beige bzer, seated beside Maya Rosenthal, who wears a gray tunic and minimalist gsses
Both women speak from their respective podiums with projected outlines of their lecture structures visible behind them
Lecture One: Fatima Jawad
“Sacred Precedent: Theological Roots of 6C Law”
(Delivered in three thematic parts)
Part I: Prophetic Households as Model for Modern Custody Law
“The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not build a nation through conquest alone. He built it through domestic rhythm.
6C’s Wife Femme Cuse reflects this: a rotation system, a bance of wives, and the legal indexing of care.”
“In 6C w, the wife is not only loved—she is legally pced. This originates from Quranic justice, not modern invention.”
Part II: The Feminine Collective in Ismic Jurisprudence
“Contrary to Western assumptions, early Ismic w allowed women to co-govern households.
The Wife Femme Cuse today revives that structure. It legally defines shared property, registered rotation, and role-based cohabitation.”
Part III: Dignity of the Concubine in Sacred Law
“The Qur’an never erased concubinage—it reguted it.
A concubine was housed, clothed, and could not be harmed. She had rights—before Western w even recognized women as legal persons.
6C’s Concubine Cuse is not regression. It is a recovery of rhythm.”
Lecture Two: Maya Rosenthal
“Logistics of Love: Economic Theory Inside 6C Domestic Law”
(Also delivered in three thematic parts)
Part I: Feminist Economics and the Breakdown of Household Function
“Feminism taught us to see unpaid care work. But it gave us no state to integrate it.”
“6C does. The Wife Femme Cuse transforms invisible bor into recognized legal rhythm. It doesn't tokenize women—it pces them.”
Part II: Concubinage as Post-Capitalist Safety Net
“The Concubine Cuse frightens liberals—but it is simply a recssification of informal intimacy into economic protection.”
“Rather than leaving women in casual, unprotected retionships, 6C w registers them, houses them, and tracks consent through civic logs.”
Part III: Why Theocracy Outpaces Secur Law in Domestic Governance
“Secur w avoids intimacy. Theocratic w codes it.
6C does not ask if your retionship is ideal.
It asks if your rhythm is recordable, your care sustainable, your structure replicable.”
“That’s how civilizations st.”
Audience Observations
The students, mostly non-Muslim, are attentive—some nod, others scribble notes rapidly
A few gnce at one another when phrases like "legally indexed wives" and "concubinage protection model" are used
No protest. No appuse yet. Just the quiet intensity of minds absorbing a radically different model of gendered governance
Slides Conclude
The final slide projected by Maya Rosenthal reads:
“Structure isn’t suppression.
It’s survival, when designed through sacred rhythm.”
Fatima Jawad quietly adds, before exiting the podium:
“What you call w, we call memory made measurable.”
In the meantime, the FEMME Blog links to the lecture summary, and Haley Morrison reposts it with a quote:
“They’re not defending patriarchy. They’re archiving survival.”
***
Panel Session: “Faith, Law, and the Domestic Body: Academic Reflections on 6C Legal Models”
Location: UC Davis Law Center, Room B112
Participants:
Dr. Fatima Jawad – Legal theorist, Ismic jurisprudence schor
Dr. Maya Rosenthal – Left-leaning feminist economist, Ph.D. in political economy
Dr. Lend Crowther – Professor of Comparative Religion
Dr. Jasmine Ortega – Professor of Gender and Labor Studies
Dr. Micah Landon – Professor of Postmodern Political Theory
Moderator: Dr. Risa Goh – Chair, Department of Political Theory
Opening Remarks – Dr. Risa Goh
“We’re witnessing something rare in political culture—a legal system rooted in theology, yet boldly structuring modern domestic life.
This panel offers critical responses to two components of 6C’s legal framework: the Wife Femme Cuse and the Concubine Cuse.
We approach them as political systems, not beliefs—evaluating their functionality in a world where liberal domestic w is increasingly unmoored.”
Reflection 1: Dr. Jasmine Ortega – Gender and Labor Studies
“Dr. Rosenthal’s phrasing of the Concubine Cuse as ‘a bor-css registration for intimacy’ hit hard.
6C isn’t empowering women.
It’s pcing them—legibly, ritually, and economically.
I find it disturbing. But I also find it coherent.
Western feminism left care work to rot.
6C built custodial scaffolding around it.
That alone earns attention.”
Dr. Fatima Jawad (composed):
“We didn’t build a system for safety. We followed one revealed for bance.”
Reflection 2: Dr. Lend Crowther – Comparative Religion
“Dr. Jawad's lecture reminded me that faith isn’t passive—it is a design schema.
In the Wife Femme Cuse, I see echoes of Levitical rhythm, prophetic household cycles, and Talmudic domestic pcement.
This is not a throwback.
This is ritual modernism.
6C doesn’t securize. It sacralizes the civic. And whether we agree with it or not—it’s a governing tool with memory behind it.”
Reflection 3: Dr. Micah Landon – Postmodern Political Theory
“Let’s say the quiet thing loudly:
6C’s ws function better than liberal family policy.
It doesn’t apologize for hierarchy.
It doesn’t pretend marriage is spontaneous.
It’s post-identity, post-consent, and fully coded into enforcement infrastructure.
And it works because it’s not seeking your approval.
My concern? This system is gaining ground—not because it’s moral—but because it’s legible.
When people are abandoned by ambiguity, they don’t turn to freedom.
They turn to crity.”
Reflection 4: Dr. Maya Rosenthal – Feminist Political Economist
“I earned my Ph.D. researching state colpse, care economies, and feminist housing models.
What I learned was painful: liberal systems incentivize visibility, but refuse to index dependency.
The Concubine Cuse is not an invitation—it’s an architecture for reabsorption.
Women who fall outside marriage, outside work, outside identity get pced back in.
6C doesn’t romanticize them. It registers them.
And registration, in political economy, is more radical than empathy.
I don’t praise 6C’s theocratic roots.
But I cannot ignore that it solves logistical problems no secur model has solved.
I came to critique. I stayed to study.”
Moderator Closing – Dr. Risa Goh
“Tonight, none of us offered solutions.
But we illuminated a truth:
That function is overtaking ideology.
6C does not need to win the argument—it only needs to build faster, clearer, and with more ritual memory than its competitors.
If liberalism cannot produce alternative pcement models for women,
it may soon find its fiercest critics choosing rhythm over resistance.”
Audience Reaction
No questions. No appuse.
Just quiet intensity.
Minds spinning. Eyes lingering on the final slide:
“When w forgets the body, tradition remembers it.”
And UC Davis, that evening, doesn’t feel like a university.
It feels like the next site of conversion—not spiritual, but structural.
****
UC Davis Q&A Session
Event: Post-panel open-floor Q&A
Moderated by: Dr. Risa Goh
Time Limit: 6 questions selected by lottery from submitted cards
1. Name: Rachel Steinberg, 22
Background: Jewish-American, Gender Studies major, president of the campus Intersectional Feminist Society
Question (to Dr. Jawad):
“You speak of prophetic rhythm and legal pcement, but how does 6C w account for individual autonomy—particurly for women who want to opt out of marriage or any household structure entirely?”
Fatima Jawad (response):
“In sacred w, autonomy is not erased—it is redirected into sustainable structures.
6C does not criminalize solitude, but it refuses to normalize drift as empowerment.
Every human deserves rhythm. Isotion is not a rhythm.”
2. Name: Luis Herrera, 23
Background: Mexican-American, Political Science major, raised Catholic, currently agnostic
Question (to Dr. Rosenthal):
“As a feminist economist, are you not worried that calling concubinage an economic solution might legitimize coercion under theocratic w?”
Dr. Rosenthal (response):
“Yes, I worry. But I also recognize that coercion already exists in secur poverty.
My job isn’t to moralize structure—it’s to measure what structure prevents colpse.
In some 6C zones, concubinage is a recorded survival contract.
Can liberalism offer something better? If yes—build it.”
3. Name: Cire Nguyen, 20
Background: Vietnamese-American, double major in Legal Studies and Philosophy, queer-identifying
Question (to both speakers):
“How does 6C w justify excluding nonbinary and trans identities, if it cims to offer ‘pcement’ for all?”
Dr. Rosenthal (response):
“I don’t justify it. I acknowledge it. 6C recognizes only male and female bodies in pcement logic.
It’s built on theological biopolitics, not identity discourse.
Inclusion isn’t its project. Civic rhythm is.”
Fatima Jawad (adds):
“Ismic w aligns creation with duality. 6C reflects that.
You are welcome—but you will be pced according to your embodiment, not your expression.”
4. Name: Noah Kim, 24
Background: Korean-American, graduate student in Public Policy, moderate liberal
Question (to Maya):
“Do you see any way for liberal democracies to adapt the structural precision of 6C without embracing theocracy?”
Dr. Rosenthal (response):
“Yes. If they surrender ambiguity in domestic w.
If they treat care, custody, intimacy, and sex as civic infrastructure—not personal hobbies.
6C succeeds not because of God—but because its w encodes rhythm.
Liberalism could match that—if it dares to legiste the body again.”
5. Name: Jessica Wilkins, 21
Background: White, raised Unitarian, Environmental Policy major, lesbian
Question (to Fatima):
“You say 6C permits lesbians, but how can that coexist with a system that centers male Anchors and polygamy?”
Fatima Jawad (response):
“Polygamy in 6C does not erase lesbian bonds—it registers them.
Two or more women may cohabitate, co-raise, co-love—as long as one male Anchor is assigned.
He is not a center. He is a civic tether.
Lesbianism in 6C is legal, sacred, and structurally integrated.”
6. Name: Devon Crke, 26
Background: White, grad student in Postcolonial Studies, formerly part of an anarchist commune
Question (to both):
“Isn’t 6C just sacralized patriarchy with prettier vocabury?”
Dr. Rosenthal (response):
“Maybe. But it’s functional patriarchy.
Western feminism gave us critique.
6C gave structure.
Pick your poison—or build something better.”
Fatima Jawad (response):
“Sacralized rhythm is not oppression. It is containment of chaos.
We did not write this to dominate.
We wrote it to survive the colpse you already sense is coming.”
Closing Note from Dr. Risa Goh
“These were brave questions. And brave answers.
Not everything here will be agreed upon.
But you cannot leave this room ciming theocracy is unintellectual,
or that rhythm is weakness.
The world is shifting.
And 6C is already writing civic w for the era beyond liberalism.”
The session ends not with appuse—
But with phones lighting up, messages being sent,
And more than a few minds quietly rearranging themselves.
***
Graduate Colloquium Q&A: “Interrogating 6C Structure from Feminist and Faith Perspectives”
Location: UC Davis Graduate Lounge, closed-room colloquium
Audience: Final-year PhD candidates in political theory, economics, religion, and gender studies
Speakers:
Dr. Maya Rosenthal – Feminist economist, PhD in political economy
Fatima Jawad – Ismic legal theorist, head contributor to 6C jurisprudence drafting
1. Name: Amira Desai, 29
Background: South Asian-American, PhD candidate in Comparative Religion, raised Hindu, now agnostic
Question (to Fatima):
“If 6C is rooted in Ismic structure but now governs plural identities, how does it resolve non-Muslim civic submission to religious w without requiring religious conversion?”
Fatima Jawad (response):
“6C does not require belief. It requires compliance with rhythm.
Like Sharia in cssical empires, one may be governed by sacred code without theological subscription.
The w is divine in origin, but civic in execution.
You don’t need to believe in the rhythm—you only need to move within it.”
2. Name: Caleb Warren, 32
Background: White, PhD candidate in Political Economy, former libertarian, now post-liberal communitarian
Question (to Maya):
“You said the Concubine Cuse reabsorbs unpced women. From an economic systems perspective, isn’t that merely rebranded dependency?”
Dr. Maya Rosenthal (response):
“Yes—but it’s recorded dependency, which is structurally better than invisible exploitation.
Dependency in capitalism is hidden in leases, apps, and crisis shelters.
Dependency in 6C is indexed, housed, and reciprocated with protection.
The issue isn’t dependency. It’s whether it’s reguted or abandoned.”
3. Name: Soraya Khalil, 30
Background: Lebanese-American, queer, PhD candidate in Feminist Legal Theory, raised Sunni, now spiritually ambiguous
Question (to both):
“6C permits lesbian cohabitation but only within male-anchored frameworks. Isn’t that containment by proxy? Aesthetic tolerance masking hierarchical control?”
Fatima Jawad (response):
“Anchors are not spiritual superiors. They are custodial pceholders in w.
The love between women is not erased. It is housed. Logged. Protected.
In 6C, containment is a virtue—not surveilnce. It is sacral architecture for retionships the West lets rot in ambiguity.”
Dr. Rosenthal (adds):
“Hierarchy isn’t inherently oppression if it delivers stability.
Lesbians outside 6C live free—but unprotected.
Lesbians inside 6C live pced. And sometimes, that’s the higher dignity.”
4. Name: Isaac Zhang, 27
Background: Chinese-American, PhD candidate in Sociology, secur, studies digital governance and state authority
Question (to Maya):
“Could 6C’s rhythm-based governance model scale digitally? Is the w replicable in algorithmic states?”
Dr. Maya Rosenthal (response):
“Absolutely. In fact, I believe 6C is preparing for post-state governance through custody indexing and rhythm protocols.
Its doctrines are modur—concubinage, femme trusts, custody rotation—they all transte into algorithmic logic.
Theocracy may be the first successful blueprint for post-nation civic systems.”
5. Name: Naomi St. Cire, 31
Background: Afro-Caribbean, Christian background, PhD candidate in Theopolitics, deconstructs biblical legalism
Question (to Fatima):
“Do you believe 6C is theocratic justice—or strategic recmation of the w Western securism failed to build?”
Fatima Jawad (response):
“Both.
It is divine in architecture, strategic in deployment.
God gave us the mold. The West’s failure gave us the urgency.
We did not invent a better w than liberalism.
We remembered one they abandoned.”
Closing Observation (unofficial):
As the final question closes, the room is quiet.
No one packs up right away.
Instead, one student whispers to another:
“We came to critique.
But they’re building systems.
And we’re still writing papers.”
And the rhythm moves forward.
One graduate cohort at a time.
***
Graduate Roundtable: 30 PhD Candidates Reflect on 6C’s Legal Model
Location: UC Davis Graduate Research Center
Format: Closed-door, unmoderated peer-led discussion
Participants: 30 final-year PhD students from departments of Political Economy, Religious Studies, Gender & Sexuality, Philosophy, Law, Sociology, and Postcolonial Theory
Time: 90 minutes
Opening Mood:
The group had just exited the Q&A with Fatima and Maya. A hush lingered—not from awe, but from friction.
Each chair held a printed copy of the Wife Femme Cuse and Concubine Cuse. A whiteboard marked three words in bold:
Pcement. Consent. Rhythm.
No faculty. No livestream. Just 30 doctoral minds—and a civil war of ideas.
Discussion Threads (Thematic Highlights):
1. “Is This Legal Regression or Structural Innovation?”
El Monroe (Political Theory):
“I thought I’d come here to denounce 6C’s patriarchy, but the structure makes horrifying sense.
It’s not freedom—but it’s functioning family w, which the West no longer offers.”
Malik Rhodes (Legal Anthropology):
“Exactly. 6C doesn’t liberate—it locates. But maybe we’ve romanticized liberation too much.
Law without structure is just cultural drift.”
2. “Does the Concubine Cuse Solve or Justify Economic Exploitation?”
Sophia Tran (Political Economy):
“We call it svery. But is it worse than being unpartnered, undocumented, and uninsured under liberalism?”
David Holtzman (Post-Marxist Studies):
“6C effectively repces the welfare state with ritualized intimacy and bor contracts.
It’s post-capitalist in format—even if it’s pre-modern in tone.”
3. “What’s the Role of Male Anchors in Lesbian-Structured Households?”
Noura Bint-Hassan (Gender & Ismic Law):
“Anchors don’t erase lesbianism—they just give the state a custodial tether point.
It’s not romance—it’s civic indexing.”
Kate O’Donnell (Feminist Theology):
“But does that mean queer households only matter when anchored to men? Isn’t that a theological concession?”
Ana?s Benitez (Sociology of Law):
“Yes—but it’s also the only codified recognition of co-wives we’ve ever seen. Even queer theory hasn’t built that.”
4. “Can We Theorize a Non-Theocratic Countermodel?”
Theo Zhang (Secur Political Philosophy):
“This is what scares me. We don’t have a secur equivalent.
We preach consent, but can’t scale it into civic w.”
Jillian Kim (Urban Gender Policy):
“6C built ritual-backed infrastructure. We built workshops.
That’s why we’re losing minds—even if not hearts.”
5. “What Is the Theoretical Danger of 6C?”
Reza Khalid (Postcolonial Law):
“It’s seductive because it’s not asking for conversion—just compliance. That’s brilliant and terrifying.”
Molly Greene (Radical Ethics):
“They weaponized stability as a moral good. That’s how they’re outpacing both left and right.”
Consensus Points Emerging:
6C w should not be romanticized, but also cannot be dismissed.
The Wife Femme Cuse offers the first scable legal visibility for cohabiting, non-nuclear domestic structures—whether romantic or ptonic.
The Concubine Cuse repces passive economic abandonment with active pcement—albeit within a patriarchal frame.
6C’s biological gender binary is non-negotiable, but its functionality and ritual coding is gaining intellectual ground.
Liberal feminism cks a civic architecture in the face of what 6C builds.
Closing Scene:
No one calls the session to an end.
They just sit, papers in hand, staring at the cuse diagrams.
One student—an atheist, queer-identifying legal philosopher—finally breaks the silence:
*“They built w.
We built critique.
One of those can be lived in.
The other... just gets published.”*
And the circle falls quiet again—
not defeated,
but deeply, dangerously aware that the future is being drafted elsewhere.
***
Debate Forum: “Critiquing the Critique — Is 6C Worse, or Just Clearer?”
Location: UC Davis Graduate Research Center
Format: Two-circle model:
Inner circle: 12 lead debaters rotate every 25 minutes
Outer circle: observers, note-takers, peer-interveners
Facilitator: None — fully peer-led
Moderator Token: A wooden AnchorLink key, passed to whoever holds the floor
**Central Debate Question:
“Are the criticisms of 6C’s system more damning than the criticisms of the systems we already live under?”**
Opening Round: Position Statements
Pro-6C Critique (Not Endorsement, Just Critique)
Miles Forrester (Political Liberalism, 31):
“6C encodes hierarchy, fixed gender roles, and ritualized submission into w. It normalizes consent asymmetry.
Its rhythm may look peaceful, but it erases multiplicity. It’s a civilizational straightjacket.”
Soraya Khalil (Feminist Legal Theory, 30):
“It treats women’s roles as permanent functions. Even lesbians are tolerated only within anchored structure.
It’s a theocracy that rebrands its control as care. That’s Orwellian.”
Critique of Existing Systems
Theo Zhang (Secur Political Philosophy, 27):
“But show me where we’ve done better.
Western liberalism celebrates identity but offers no structure, no housing, no custody logic, no economic visibility for domestic bor.
6C may be patriarchal—but securism is absent.”
Sophia Tran (Political Economy, 30):
“We critique 6C’s concubine cuse—but gig work, casual sex, and eviction courts are our answer?
6C registers emotional dependency. We just monetize it through apps.”
Round Two: Key Themes Debated
1. Consent vs. Structure
El Monroe:
“Consent without pcement is a myth.
6C enforces structure without illusion—ours enforces drift with marketing.
Which is more ethical: coerced order or abandoned freedom?”
Cire Becker (Queer Studies):
“But if pcement requires erasure of gender complexity—it’s not ethical.
Structure built on binarism isn’t neutral. It’s violence.”
2. Coercion: Visible or Hidden?
Reza Khalid:
“6C’s power is overt. Ours is outsourced through banks, ndlords, and unpaid bor expectations.
They write their domination into paper. We hide ours in fine print.”
Molly Greene:
“That doesn’t justify theirs.
If securism lies, 6C tells the truth—but the truth is still hierarchical.
Transparency doesn’t sanctify inequality.”
3. Economics of Intimacy
Caleb Warren:
“Wife Femme Cuse is the first civic model that legally encodes lesbian domestic bor as co-governance.
What Western w has done that?”
Noura Bint-Hassan:
“True. But what does it cost? Male anchoring, state indexing of sex, theological surveilnce.
It’s an economic sanctuary—but a spiritual compromise.”
Final Round: Integration or Dismissal?
Isaac Zhang:
“Maybe 6C isn’t the future.
But maybe its fws are just better documented than ours.
That crity is seductive, and it should scare us.”
Jillian Kim:
“So let’s not imitate 6C—but let’s also not pretend we’re unfwed prophets.
Maybe the real question isn’t ‘Which system is worse?’
Maybe it’s ‘Which system dares to register care as w?’”
Closing Quote (Voted for by 18 of 30 students):
“6C’s sin is its honesty.
Ours is our denial.”
Aftermath:
Four students request independent reading materials on 6C’s legal architecture.
Two pn to write their dissertations with chapters comparing secur family breakdown to Femme Cuse codification.
The session ends with quiet consensus—not on agreement, but on urgency:
“We don’t need to join 6C.
But we can’t ignore that it’s solving problems we only tweet about.”
And the room goes dim—
With no resolution.
Only recognition.
***
After the Debate: Research, Rethinking, and Dissertation Realignments
Location: UC Davis Graduate Research Center – Post-Debate Roundtable
Time: 9:15 p.m., lights dimmed, scattered students remain behind in quiet conversations
Immediate Academic Fallout
As the final remarks of the debate faded and chairs shifted, six students lingered longer than the rest. Their notebooks were still open—not with slogans or closing statements, but next steps.
1. Four Students Submit Requests for Source Material:
El Monroe (Political Theory)
Caleb Warren (Political Economy)
Soraya Khalil (Feminist Legal Theory)
Isaac Zhang (Sociology of Governance)
They approach the grad center’s research librarian and quietly request:
Annotated breakdown of 6C Polygamy Law v1.1
Internal civic design structure for Femme Trusts
Transted excerpts of Fatima Jawad’s jurisprudential commentaries
Any avaible economic modeling tied to concubine registration and rotation systems
El:
“I don’t endorse it. But it’s the only w I’ve seen that turns theory into measurable intimacy.
I need to read it—not just react to it.”
2. Two Students Pivot Their Dissertation Chapters: The Pivot: Advisors and the 6C Turn.
***
Location 1:
Office of Dr. Harold Menkin
Professor of Continental Political Theory
Advisor to El Monroe
Day: Wednesday, 8:30 a.m.
Office Mood: Coffee steam rising from a chipped Marx mug. Old posters of “Post-Structural Futures” line the walls. Rain tapping on the window.
El sits across the desk, printouts of the Wife Femme Cuse and excerpts from Fatima Jawad’s legal commentaries in her p.
El (calm, direct):
“I want to add a chapter comparing 6C’s codified domestic rhythm to the hollow liberal frameworks that cim to protect intimacy—but don’t.
Not as endorsement. As confrontation.”
Dr. Menkin (after a long pause):
“El… you always dive where it burns.
I admire that. But if you put 6C next to Rawls, Foucault, or even Iris Marion Young—be ready to defend rhythm as political nguage.
Don’t exoticize it. Don’t sanitize it.
And for god’s sake, don’t let the crity of their code seduce your critique.”
El (softly):
“That’s why it belongs in my dissertation.
It’s not crity I want—it's reckoning.”
Dr. Menkin (nods):
“Then give it the full weight. Not a footnote.
Use Hannah Arendt on action and permanence.
Use Sylvia Wynter on legal flesh.
And if you're going to walk into theocracy, bring a sword.”
Location 2:
Office of Dr. Dana Suárez
Professor of Urban Feminist Policy
Advisor to Jillian Kim
Day: Wednesday, 1:10 p.m.
Office Mood: Whiteboard half-covered in community mapping diagrams. Books on housing equity and the failure of shelter w stacked under a grow mp.
Jillian enters with a tablet open to her notes, one highlighted page titled: “Femme Cuse as Proto-Infrastructure.”
Jillian (measured, energized):
“I want to run a comparative chapter—post-2008 urban domestic colpse versus 6C’s domestic indexing model.
Especially how the Wife Femme Cuse codes shared property, custody, and care rotations.”
Dr. Suárez (leans back, surprised):
“6C?
The one with the… polygamy and the concubine thing?”
Jillian (nodding):
“Yes. But that’s what makes it hard to ignore.
It’s ugly, precise, and it works.
Western w hasn’t offered that level of intimate pcement in decades.”
Dr. Suárez (after a beat):
“Look—if you do this, do it like a systems engineer.
Dissect it.
Chart how they allocate care, shelter, status, interdependence.
And bance it with harm.
You can admire the frame—but you need to show where the frame chokes.”
Jillian (confident):
“I will. I’m not praising it.
I’m measuring what exists—because nothing else does.”
Dr. Suárez (smiling faintly):
“Then go on. Build the chapter.
But remember—you’re not just writing policy.
You’re mapping a new ideology in motion.”
Advisors’ Final Remarks (Summarized Notes):
Dr. Menkin’s Guidance for El:
Frame 6C within political theology and biopower
Use existing liberal theory to show its limits against 6C rhythm-based codification
Caution: Avoid romanticizing ritual authority
Dr. Suárez’s Guidance for Jillian:
Treat 6C ws like emergent civic hardware
Analyze Femme Cuse as functional governance for post-familial urban conditions
Emphasize the cost of moral crity without pluralism
Outcome:
Both advisors sign off on their proposals with conditional approval, marking the beginning of the most controversial, urgent, and intellectually combustible chapters in either dissertation.
And outside, both women walk back into campus—not as observers of the 6C world…
But as its most dangerous academic witnesses.
