@sidraqasim1, I think you could adjust your phrasing whenever talking about the "pregnant women" angle. Many women I know choose to work for the majority of their pregnancy.
I don't think you need any of that actually. Just make it all about connecting the buyer with the craftsman - putting a face and name to the product. That might well include a pregnant Chinese woman who is happy to keep making things until late in her pregnancy to prepare financially for their future.
I also don't think the middleman thing is worth mentioning either. You're the middleman now. The process might be more efficient and adjusted, but there's still a middleman!
My parents had a leather bag made for me in India many years ago, and brought back a photograph of the guy working on the stitching, etc. It's a nice idea.
I personally would love women (or anyone) to work if they want to.
Unfortunately, exploitative situations are common in the shoe industry in developing countries and some of the most vulnerable people end up working for too little, doing work that can be physically harmful to them, and not having the option to quit. That's the kind of situation I was talking about. We're in a position to give people new options, like working for a decent wage and being able to take time off if they need to.
I'm curious. Folks don't have the option to quit because they need the money, or because people will harm them if they do? In the former case, it seems that by excluding people from your marketplace - which according to you offers higher pay and better conditions than alternate modes of employment - you are harming them rather than helping.
Compare to a hypothetical situation of homejoy or similar service excluding black Americans from employment on the theory that black Americans are more likely to really need the money and therefore don't have the option to quit.
Making a handcrafted shoe is a physically intensive job so we are being careful towards this. Perhaps at some point, as the company grows we would be able to invest more in this area and see if it needs to be changed for some women.
I think you need to be pretty careful about this. If you're saying making shoes is too physically intensive for any pregnant women, that's a pretty blanket statement. Some women are active until quite late into their pregnancy, and the idea that they might not be capable of making a shoe could seem quite insulting.
Also, presumably part of the appeal of this product is that your workers will receive better conditions than in horrible sweatshops. If you're saying that pregnant women are often exploited, but you won't let them work for you (and I may have misunderstood this) then aren't you dooming them to the conditions they already suffer, and denying them the chance to work for a better employer - you, in this case?
Thanks, those are really good points and we'll take some time to think about how to communicate this better.
I mentioned pregnant women because the ones I've seen doing this work stand out vividly in my memory as examples of people who are currently working under abusive conditions and deserve much better. That's one of the reasons why we started Markhor to begin with and have been very careful. And of course they'll be welcome to make shoes for us if they want to, since the conditions of such work will be much better.
In our parts of the world (eastern Europe), but I'm sure all the more in 3rd world countries, women don't get insulted if somebody suggests they shouldn't work during their pregnancy.
For most of them, unfortunately, working or not working is not decided on a whim, but because they need to feed their family.
So if you were to suggest them not to work during their pregnancy, they would be all but insulted, most likely they would laugh, knowing it's not a question of preference.
