If you read my comment I specify that this is something he should've done the day his mother died. Haejoon is almost an adult, he'll still of course need a parental figure even when he does reach legal age, but you cant deny it would've been much more beneficial for him to know his father existed and cared for him (even if not there physically) after his mother's death.
Happy memories that don't involve bad mouthing the kid's dead mom. Crazy idea, I know.
Isolated the father bringing this up wouldn't be a huge issue, as Haejoon deserves to know the type of person his mother is, & it is something Haejoon seemed to reciprocate positivly. However, he only brought it up to further sully her name. To me, it seems as if he's trying to make the mom look bad so Haejoon would be more likely to like/accept him.
The reason why we bring up issues despite them being "normal" is because what is "normal" isnt always good. Beating children used to be (& to many still is) normal. But as we talk about the harms corporal punishment against children causes them we denormalize it. Slowly it becomes stigmatized and not normal.
In short, just because something is normal does not make it immune to criticism and further introspection onto how it may cause harm.
I've responded in previous chapters to the ludicrous idea that he should have been there the day the mother died. It's highly unrealistic and, quite frankly, actively makes the world a worse place because you set an unrealistic burden on him.
The mother had cut off all communication with him. He thought that the mother was raising Haejoon fine, and she died SUDDENLY. In an accident. He had no way of knowing that she had died the day it happened. I'll be fairly realistic. Funerals are usually held soon after the death of the person. It makes complete sense to say he also could not have realistically have been there at the funeral.
In an earlier chapter, I said it was fine to criticize him for not being there for the roughly one year time frame unless he had some specific excuse. I am completely okay with saying he waited too long and should be criticized for that. But I will at least cut him some slack and say he had no way of being there for Haejoon in the day of the mother's death and, probably, at least two weeks. I think two weeks is reasonable as a bare minimum, but maybe longer.
But your statement of he should've been there on that same day actively makes the world worse because you have this HIGHLY unrealistic expectation that he inevitably fails. And please don't say you were exaggerating and simply meant that he should've been there sooner. That would be a cop out of your own words.
---
Happy memories. So many problems with what you wrote. First, the father divorced and was cut off fairly early on in Haejoon's life. That's a fact. It is a possibility, then, that they may not have many happy memories together. Like, that's a completely possible situation. As such, they would bond over the only thing they do have in common, the mother. Crazy idea to bond over shared experiences and memories, huh?
Second, it actually did seem like some of the memories were happy. Doing the thing you said he should do. Crazy idea. I can GUESS that he ALSO talked about happy memories and wasn't only putting down the mother during their entire conversation when they were in the restaurant. It would be really weird if that was the ONLY thing they talked about. I don't think it unreasonable to say they did bond over whatever happy memories they could share.
He only brought it up to "sully" her name. Let me be clear that I am by no means trying to just blanket defend the father. But I will call out when people make assumptions that just fit their own story. That's what you're doing here. In his first interaction with Haejoon, at the beginning of the arc, he directly said the mother suffered a lot because of their financial situation. That does not seem like the kind of thing someone would say if they just want to sully the mother's name. It is your assumption to say the he brought her up to silly her. You might be right, but I am still going to call out the assumption.
---
Nah. No surprise that normal isn't always good. Why would I ever agree with that statement? Me, the person who first said normal isn't always good, agreeing with you now saying normal isn't always good? Could never happen.
Okay, calming down a moment, I might be misinterpreting WHY you are saying that. We are obviously in agreement, but it feels weird as hell for you to say that here. To me. The one who first said it.
What you did is shallow. You can't just say we talk about the harms of corporal punishment against children and slowly denormalize it. Do you not see that you are appealing to normalcy right there? You didn't go into the harms of it. You said we denormalize it. No, I don't expect you to give a full explanation of the harms. I do expect you to avoid saying "denormalize" in a conversation where you specifically say normal isn't good.
And the reason I brought up normality even though I was the one to bring up that normal isn't good is to at least highlight my own position and try to make clear any assumptions I have. I definitely am making lots of assumptions, but I try to be clear about them. I'm going to fail, obviously, but I'm trying to communicate them.
Especially with that sully comment, that was a clear assumption you made that you just took as granted and as fact, somehow. You didn't even acknowledge that.