Harry Harpending proposes that government support go through the father rather than the mother, and gives reasons based in biology and incentives. I admit to being dumbfounded and very suspicious. However, it would never have occurred to me and I thus have not thought about it in the least, so I reserve judgement. Part II to follow, and I will certainly wait for that.
Charitable groups in poor countries tend to give aid to women, or directly to programs such as schools or cooperative agriculture, because the men are more likely to spend the money on alcohol or gambling than the women are. In western cultures, women have long been the default parent, the one who is stuck with, or gifted with, the children. Upending that seems risky. One can easily imagine terrible scenarios where the children's needs are completely neglected in favor of the father's choices for the money.
On the other hand, that occurs now with some women already. My Romanian children were neglected by both parents, perhaps more by the mother than the father. Would it happen more with men? We think so, but I doubt there is data that is not thoroughly contaminated by the laws and customs of any place. If the number of horror stories is similar, and there is some other cultural gain that would be a long-term advantage, perhaps it should be considered. Go over and join the conversation.
Or here. Here is good.