This is an interesting conversation on many levels.
While I do bemoan the fact that in many circles absent fathers get less of a negative reaction than absent mothers, I do understand the historical reasons why. One big reason has to do with the fact that in pre-historic times men had to hunt, which would take them away from their families for relatively long periods of time. Then there were wars for men to fight, and war took/takes men away from family, farm, and business. In the industrial era, men were the primary ones working in the factories, mills, trains, ships, etc.
Society was structured that way to suit the needs of the times. Times have changed, and now women can be called off to fight wars, or hired to work 80-hour weeks. And the truth is that for the West to sustain its economies, we need women out of the house. If women went back to "the kitchen" the world's economies would collapse.
As with so many past advancements in the development of humanity, society's norms and attitudes frequently lag behind. In my mind, there is no difference between a man who chooses to become a non-custodial parent, and a woman who does the same. What matters to me is their motivation and circumstances. I think of some of the Meso-American migrant farm workers I've met over the years. These guys don't want to leave their families behind in backward, dangerous, corrupt countries just so they can labor in the fields of New Jersey of Pennsylvania all day on the summer heat. They do so as a last--and often best--resort. These guys endure the pain of separation from their families, but know that it is temporary, and hope their sacrifices will make better lives for their children.
OTOH, there are young men going to high school just a few blocks from my office who think they have the right to make a baby with a girl, and then let her and her mother take care of that baby. They are going to "live their lives" no matter what.