Women’s Rights Network imploding

[NameChangedWren]

WTF is going on? There are letters circulating with members alleging bullying, and anyone who asks a question is suspended and comments deleted. The leader calling everyone to urgent meetings with bizarre messaging: ‘there is no letter, and if there is it’s full of lies, and you can’t see the letter just trust us, and ooh look, something shiny!’ Should I cut my losses, cancel my standing order and just follow Let Women Speak?

I’m simply sharing what I’ve personally encountered and observed, just as others are doing here.
To your point about “no smoke without fire,” it’s worth noting that this principle can cut both ways, but it shouldn’t override due process or evidence-based outcomes. In cases where complaints have been investigated and found unsubstantiated, persisting with insinuations without concrete evidence can feel unfair and unproductive. For instance, if an employee’s allegations were dismissed by a regulator with expert input, repeatedly invoking “smoke” might undermine the credibility of the process itself, rather than fostering resolution.
Regarding the broader context, the experiences of over 62 women from Scotland who were removed from the Women’s Rights Network (WRN) are indeed relevant and shouldn’t be invalidated. These women have publicly detailed how they were expelled for raising concerns about policy directions or internal decisions, often without what they describe as fair hearings. Their accounts, shared highlight patterns of exclusion that echo some of the dynamics we’re discussing. Dismissing them as mere “aspersions” risks overlooking legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, just as we should with any complaint.

As you think you are the expert describe what position the member groups have in relation to the company?

Are they consumers, are they shareholders.

I think you dont have the first idea of how political campaigns, or feminist networks operate.

And that a company structure is just a vehicle.

This is the FWR thread, not some training ground to join The Apprentice.

Company structure may be a 'vehicle'
but it sets the law.

WRN has no shareholders.
Member groups have no legal status at all.

I study Council, Charity and Company law.
It is very important that people understand how organisations they work with or for are structured
and funded

(who funds the multiple identical banners at each TRA march)

We cannot protect what we cannot define.

Im not sure what to say as I don’t completely understand your response about my DH’s situation and im still bereft of any facts to understand your Scottish example.

Totally agree with this - always surprised that people don’t understand the contractual basis for everyday interactions. Marriage is dressed up in romance but it has traditionally had bliddy awful contract terms for wims - I only signed up for tax and child parentage reasons 🤣

You just aren't understanding. It isn't about your knowledge of the law, this is a thread about a group purporting to be set up to enable demonstrations and campaigns about women's sex based rights.

So as you cant or dont want to think in that context, how does the company structure enable local women's groups do that.

You seem to think I am stupid or uninformed. All you are doing is illustrating that the problems and criticisms that this thread reflects may well be sign posted by legal structure they have chosen.

And sticking with you thinking your monocular view of the world, including feminist activism, should only be seen through the peep hole of your area of expertise, how does a company run or claim the right to run local women's groups.

Do you understand the issue.

And in fact that you are illustrating that there probably is a problem with the reclusive group that somehow thought being a company meant they could control women.

And no I dont blame other women for being niave, or uneducated about the niceties of the law.

This thread is about the actual intentions of the, not sure what it is, ruling group.

Why would a company be able to control or tell women what to say or think.

Do you get the issue?

So do you meet up in person? Because that was one of the things WRN Scotland objected to, we were not to talk about any WRN business when we meet up, if there was not a WRN representative there

Wow, that's controlling. Why on earth did they say that? And how wide does the definition of 'WRN business' go? If you're talking in general about women's sex based rights, is that 'WRN business'.

Mind boggled.

Edited to add: And what does 'WRN representative' mean? If it's WRN members speaking to each other anyway.....

I kind of understand this. I’ve met women from WRN IRL in a meeting arranged through another group chat. Not everyone in the pub was WRN vetted so it was appropriate to not talk about WRN specifics.

No one ever said “don’t meet”. But WRN doesn’t have the resources to check people’s id at the door of a physical meet up, nor, I imagine would they want to.

I’m happy with that, it means what goes on in WRN stays in WRN. It’s one of the few places where I am totally open about my real name, my employer etc.

Indeed, you might well ask , WRN were not keen on us having meet ups , if it was felt we might discuss WRN. Now obviously the one thing we women would have had was an interest in discussing women’s rights…

"WRN business"
Ah, you mean internal information obtained through internal WRN channels.

Would ANY group allow you to share confidential internal information with unidentified outsiders ?

Get over yourself.

Attendees at a coffee morning have no need to know about what the leadership team of any organisation are discussing
(eg the WI or Macmillan Cancer or the RSPB)
especially if they are not paying members of a charity
and often even then.

Eg I am an RHS member.
If I met a board member for coffee and they breached confidentiality
they would be defenstrated as soon as HQ found out
and rightly so.

OK so what's the definition of WRN business and what's the definition of a WRN representative?

Because I'm probably going to think it's reasonable or unreasonable based on those definitions.

So if those women are discussing public planned events - is that WRN Business? If they're open public events that have been publicised. They might have found out about them from WRN 'channels' but presumably can talk about that?

If it's details of an internal disciplinary process then obviously that should be confidential and is not ok. However I would suggest that telling people that they just can't meet up and talk IN GENERAL about 'WRN business' is a bit OTT. A word to those who've received such information through WRN channels is possibly enough and would be a small number of people.

However, if it's the woman subject to that process giving her own feelings on the matter that's ok IMO.

But the PP said 'any WRN business' which casts a very wide net. It's not 'don't disclose confidential information' which you really shouldn't have to tell adults in any case, but ok fine. It's 'don't talk about WRN business at all' that's different.
Doesn't display much trust in their membership.

What “ internal information “ would that be? Top secret stuff ? Like what ? Anyone reading WRN website can see what causes the WRN engaged with .
When WRN had their vigils for Afghan women those vigils were not secret, they were held in prominent places and the hope was that people might think about those women and possibly recruit other women to WRN.

I've just looked at WRN's members-only pages and there is absolutely confidential information about grassroots activity by members that should not be shared more widely. Women are putting themselves in the firing line to push back on policies and activities in workplaces, schools, sports etc. That detail shouldn't be in the public domain.

I don’t know about your group but my local WRN doesn’t really have access to “confidential internal information”. It’s a feminist support and campaign group, we don’t hold the nuclear codes. National information is mainly events with other GC organisations which are widely publicised, or women holding up flags for photos. It’s not exactly top secret stuff.

The original purpose was to link up women locally so they can support each other. This has worked well in my area, we helped one member lobby the council for a suitable placement for her disabled daughter, and another one get advice about separating from an abusive partner. Telling some women they aren’t allowed to meet up and talk, or have chat groups online, undermines this purpose. And is really controlling.

Just quoting my own post here so everyone can see I'm not holding grudges anymore about what happened last year with WRN Scotland, I did feel the regional split decision was done without any warning and lots of us weren't happy, it did feel a bit controlling. Like I said in previous posts, I wasn't party to the ins and outs of what was going on with the leadership and certain members, I do suspect there were other things bubbling under the surface. However, the impact to me was I was caught in the crossfire of a situation I wasn't really fully versed up in and ended up being one of the 60+ women kicked out of the network without warning.

As it is, various personal issues have meant I am just stepping back generally anyway from things, but it was a shock at the time. There was a thread about it which everyone can read; a lot of emotions running high at the time but I suspect some of the women on that thread did know more than me about it all.

However I do think it does more good and I'll still champion women's groups even if it didn't work out for me.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5353037-womens-rights-network-scotland-has-imploded

Yes we meet in person monthly for coffees/lunches etc.! Our coordinator knows (and is invited), and nobody mentioned rules about what we could or couldn't discuss. I'd be annoyed if we were told we weren't allowed to discuss things unless there was a good reason.

This is my experience too - we're not party to anything top secret, although some of us are in the separate campaign groups which we occasionally talk about a bit by chance. Mostly we have a good laugh, discuss current affairs and have a bit of a debate about things!

So is this another instance where language being used is not being received or understood in the way the message was meant to be.

eg dont ever pass onto to anybody information you learn about a named individual taking on to challenge or who is being disciplined or whatever in connection to being a WRN member.

WRN "business" sounds like, I am not sure what. Clever deals to get money or something.

Just as the appropriation of a business structure (limited company) seems strange and out of sync with the mission of WRN, maybe messaging isn't clear.

Not quite the same but also opaque as mud that on the WRN web site it says anyone with a virgin media email account cant join? Wnat? Why? (**)

At least offer an explanation. If it is some technical reason (?!?) suggest setting up a proton account.

Taken as a whole it is very strange.

But certainly do understand the need to prioritise women's safety and confidentiality.

(**) Edited to add this in case what I have said doesn't make sense, quote:

Please don't use a Virgin Media, Blue Yonder or NTL World email address as our emails will not reach you..*

And cant find what the * refers to.

These email addresses don't work for a number of organisations. I cannot receive newsletters from a cycling organisation because I have a BY email address so I use an alternative - nothing strange about it.

Some WRN members work in captured organisations and need to be sure their employer will not find out about their personal views - just as people on these forums need to be careful for similar reasons.

Sorry, I have had a BY email for decades (it is very, very old) and have never had a problem recieving from a range of mailing lists, feminist and otherwise.

But irrespective of that false allegation, it makes WRN look totally mad.

Let alone having an * to indicate some explanation, and then there isn't one.

It just adds to them look a tiny bit over the top, and with no clear statement about what is going on in their heads to have something like this on their home page.

If say on visiting a campaign group web site, or even which I do on occassions, a more radical organisation I kept seeing we dont accept VM emails I would think, there must be a problem.

On the other hand if it is a political position because somehow VM more that any other internet provider is just beyond redemption, then just say that.

@IwantToRetireI don't see why warning potential members that there might be a problem with particular email addresses makes WRN look mad. I think it just shows that they're aware that women have had problems in the past and that they want to avoid the same problems happening in the future.

Platforms that are used for mass mailings such as newsletters do seem to take against certain email addresses for some strange reason that I'm not techy enough to understand.

I use Action Network to send out newsletters for a different group and it seems to take against certain email addresses.

False allegation?

I don't know about RhymesWithOrange's experience but for me in the wilds(ish) of Somerset, one day we were in the Somerset Shoppers group chat on Twitter, then it was re-badged as Somerset WRN. That was it. I'm not sure if others were asked their opinion, or what, but I wasn't. Not that I would have objected, particularly, but it definitely wasn't put out to all "members" (as loose as we were) of the existing groups about a change.

And someone upthread mentioned how I can't say "Heather's gonna Heather" or discussing the formation of Women of Wessex without it being mudslinging. I'm slinging no mud. I was just saying that the Director/CEO/Whatever She Calls Herself Head Honcho/Queen Bee of WRN has form for not liking people - strong women - objecting to her pronouncements, even if they have good reason for the objection. And the thing with feminists is we're not exactly shrinking violets, are we? We're fighting the status quo, it's not going to attract the meek and biddable as a general rule.

As a former member who was thrown out of the WRN - without the disciplinary processes being followed - for supporting a member who the leadership had taken against, I can confirm that, for an alleged grassroots organisation, the rank and file have no voice. Members have no say in who represents them nor in which issues are supported by WRN. It's a great shame, as WRN has done some terrific work and local networks have been a lifeline for many women. Last year, 62 women were thrown out of WRN Scotland, without any due process, and the same is happening in Bucks and Calder. I'm pleased to hear that there are local groups still functioning well, but then mine was brilliant until the 'leadership' took exception to one of the members and threw out all those who supported her.