Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there is a bit of a lack of empathy in your response. First, not everyone has learned how to express affection, especially some of the previous generations. The author even wrote that the father wanted to be involved in his child's life, but did not have practice or models for being the kind of father the author wanted. It does not indicate cowardice. It could be very difficult to switch one's frame of view t…
> The author even wrote that the father wanted to be involved in his child's life, but did not have practice or models for being the kind of father the author wanted. then the author's father should have figured it out. i don't have a lot of sympathy for people in problem solving fields that, for the life of them, somehow can't solve for family. You read the docs (books), figure it out, and seek SME's for guidance. J…
Going a little beyond the case of the article, for something like interpersonal relationships, there are as many methods as there are practitioners, many of them diametrically opposed to each other. What's considered best varies by culture, by demographics, fades in and out like fashion, works for some personalities and relationships and not others, might be harmful in ways not currently understood. It's not like math where there are empirically correct answers that can be logically proven. Certainly one can do what one considers best based on the current situation and general consensus, but I don't think it would be surprising if some people find that their best intentions are considered strange or unacceptable some time down the road, as society changes.
Getting back to the article, the author did not mention whether they talked to the father about their needs and wants. It is possible that the father thought he was solving for family quite adequately. We don't have both sides of the story.