Heminist, if your posts this morning had been made late at night I would be rolling my eyes and thinking, "Drunk in charge of the internet 🙄 ?"
You seem to think that this is some sort of game: confessing that you aim to bait women, responding with insults that are paired with "laughing" and "deranged face" emojis.
What Clementinebloom · said (Today, 6th March 00:45) is sobering, which you seem to need metaphorically if not literally.
"Let's be clear: all we actually have in these 35+ pages is a pile of documents (grievance letters, expulsion emails, screenshots of suspensions, etc.) where women have detailed what happened to them – bullying, heavy-handed suspensions for asking basic questions, deletions, top-down control, even funds going into personal accounts rather than official ones.
And what do we have from WRN or their apologists on this thread? Crickets on disputing any of those specific claims.
I've not seen a single post from WRN supporters (or anyone claiming to speak for them) actually contradicting the key allegations with evidence or counter-documents. No "that grievance letter is fabricated", no "those suspension emails are out of context and here's why", no "the personal account transfers were legitimate because [explanation]". Just vague hand-waving about "contradictions" that never materialise, or attacks on the women posting, or pivots to "you can't verify it either way".
If there really were solid contradictions from WRN's side, they'd have been posted by now – especially given how defensive some posters get. Instead, silence on the substance, which rather speaks volumes.
Women aren't daft – we notice when questions go unanswered."
To all the women coming on to this thread to hurl insults at women who are raising legitimate concerns about governance and financial transparency, and to deflect and derail, you might think that you are "defending WRN" but you are only making things so much worse.
Saying that you are not "WRN leadership" but are just ordinary members, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, is far from reassuring for any women reading this thread who might have been thinking of joining WRN.
How many of the "thousands" (disputed) of WRN members have any day-to-day contact with "WRN leadership"? Very few, I would imagine. However, most are going to find themselves in WhatsApp Groups with other "ordinary members".
I am sure that there will be groups running along amicably but you are presenting a picture of WRN "ordinary members" as really quite vicious bullies and WRN groups as toxic, authoritarian places where members keep each other under constant surveillance for any sign of "disloyalty", eg. asking questions about WRN governance.
There have also been peculiar assertions by some women who do not consider themselves to be WRN members, even though they purport to be part of WRN in some mysterious way beyond having signed up to receive the Newsletter. Other WRN members on the thread were unaware of the existence of WRN Guidelines for Members and the sanctions that will be applied if they breach those Guidelines.
Some members say they went through a "Vetting Process" before being permitted to join WRN. Other members were unaware that any such process exists. I assume that the latter are most likely to be what WRN refers to as "Legacy Members".
That is how WRN refers to the women who started the original Shoppers Groups, the groups that were taken over by Heather Binning and used to justify her classification of WRN Ltd. on Companies House:
Nature of business (SIC)
- 94990 - Activities of other membership organisations not elsewhere classified
- 96090 - Other service activities not elsewhere classified
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14041486
However, as others have pointed out, there is only one legal member of WRN Ltd. (Heather Binning) while everyone else is a member of the voluntary membership organisation (WRN), which is run by WRN Ltd.
It would actually be a lot clearer how the two organisations relate to each other if the Shoppers Groups had not been renamed as Women's Rights Network Groups and/or if Heather Binning had not named her Private Ltd Company "Women's Rights Network Ltd.".
I don't think anyone should be criticised for looking at the facts and wondering, why the lack of transparency? They can hardly be blamed if the words "hijack" and "personal gain" then spring to mind.
That is not being (all the various insults thrown at women asking questions), it is women using their eyes: seeing smoke and mirrors, surveillance and bullying everywhere they turn.
It is women using their brains to try to make sense of an organisation they had assumed was feminist (description now dropped from website), entirely benign and dedicated to supporting women's activism for sex-based rights (description also dropped from website).
With WRN not being what most women thought it was, and with members claiming not to be members simply because they do not pay membership fees and/or not knowing that their membership is conditional on following Guidelines they have never heard of, WRN sounds quite chaotic under the surface.
Combined with authoritarian management, purges and smear campaigns, is this an example of what could be described as "anarcho-tyranny" - but at the corporate level? It is a term much bandied about at the moment in relation to governments but it sprang to my mind as I finished writing this post.