Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".
The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.
So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".
There is no contradiction between free markets and negotiated benefit conditions. The same goes for pensions. It's a matter of saving up and negotiating with your employer where it may apply. A female who would only commit in company endeavours short term because she will retire to have children, cannot expect the same treatment as one who wouldn't, because they don't have the same market value and forcing it will only devalue the net sum of them all. This can be securitised (maternity insurance).
But they'd rather have the rest of the society pay for it. Also, the raising of children is not an expense for females. It's an expense for the whole family and it has been so for centuries.
kidding
