There is a fundamental difference, Sumitra, between (1) exploring an 
intentionally detached part of a panoply of behavior and action that 
I presume you designate by the phrase "social institutions and 
realities" and (2) judging whether parts of this panoply is right or 
wrong. You seem interested in the latter. Hayek, in his treatment of 
the pure market economy, was not interested in this in my opinion. 
Neither was Smith in his treatment of the system of natural liberty.

I have little idea of what you or John mean by the working class, 
power, or asymmetry of power.  I also can't relate to formal and real 
freedoms. And I don't see how the "sexual division of labor" as you 
call it, is relevant to the issue. These have very little to do with 
the "spontaneous orders" that Hayek and Smith analyzed with their 
role as economists.

Freedom of enterprise, a condition of the pure market economy and of 
Smith's system of liberty, is clearly defined. There is no reason for 
a sexual division of labor in a free enterprise system, unless an 
individual who acts in the employer role uses her position to satisfy 
her preference to hire only women (or only men) for specific jobs or 
unless there is monopoly. Other men and women with different 
preferences always have the legal right to compete as employers.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Pat Gunning