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".
+1
That's why we need a neutral entity (in that case, the governement) to provides protections for that. Free market is completely inapt to take care of that situation since they only follow private profit. Children can only be a social profit and cannot generate individual profit until many years later.
Anyway, it's not really a problem anymore. Developed countries usually offer around 1 complete year of parental leave, with some time reserved for the mother, some time reserved for the father. The Scandinavian model is the reference with the best being the Swedish one, offering 16 months paid at 80% or something of the salary. It doesn't hinder their development, far from it, it's probably the best thing you can do. Give a chance to the parents, give complete free education up to the university and bingo! You produce wonderful and skillful citizens to compete on the free market.