I think you and I both agree fundamentalist, dogmatic views aren't very helpful for increasing human well-being. The anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist side of me really wants to believe the market can solve all problems, including sex and gender discrimination.
It would seem you are rather conflicted!
You've already commented on how my "anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist side" surprises you because I'm interested in some ideas from people like Noam Chomsky. I don't take as much of a dogmatic view as many others who throw that label around. Also, importantly, the various flavors of anarchy don't advocate or lead to aggression and violence while most "fundamentalist, dogmatic views" do.
@bacchist: not sure if you'll see this reply, but I get where you're coming from. I was just discussing this with @brettflorio today, actually. To me, I think it's clear how free markets and economic freedom increase human well-being. I view things from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and it's when we get near the top that we even consider our role in fixing social problems, IMO. People can't even talk about this stuff if they are scraping to get by for their basic needs. I see the abundance created by functioning markets as lifting humanity out of poverty so they can actually tackle social problems in the first place.
That's an extreme view, IMO, but I'll look into "market fundamentalism" and see how much of that dogma I might be influenced by without realizing it.
The idea that the market will supply a solution for social problems is dogmatic. There's no evidence that it has or ever will. Wikipedia says that the term "market fundamentalism" is a pejorative, so I avoided using it... but I think embedded in the term is a cogent critique. My intent was not to offend you or insult you, though. I just found it interesting to find those two statements in such close proximity.