[sidraqasim1]

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.

[yummyfajitas]

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.

Of course, as a matter of PR, you'll certainly avoid problems caused by the copenhagen interpretation of ethics. http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi...