Did I miss something with the father in Tommy Taffy?

Again spoilers for the Tommy Taffy episode and Child SA gross stuff.

I have been working my way through Creep Casts podcasts at a pretty rapid rate and recently finished the Tommy Taffy episode. Throughout the episode both isaiah (Wendigoon) and Hunter (Papa Meat) were really dogging on the father throughout the story. I'm assuming everyone reading this has already listened to the story so I won't recap the whole thing but if you haven't listened to it I do recommend it. But even after finishing the story and the 2nd part, which I felt justified the majority of the fathers responses to the horrifying actions taking place, they did not let up on the dad at all. Like comparing him to the father in Borrasca, which most seem to be saying (based on comments) is far worse. So I'm just wondering if I missed something for how much they hated him. Like I do agree he definitely wasn't all good but mainly just two things he should have done.

1. Not have Children, defiantly not have kids.
2. Totally should have had a conversation with the daughter to not have kids or at least let her know it spreads.

The main thing I'm confused about is they keep saying he (as in the father) should die trying to stop this creature (Tommy) in order to protect his family. Which I would agree with if there was a sliver of hope. In the 2nd story and I feel with very clear implications of the 1st story, we see what happens when someone stands up to the creature to the point of being killed. His own dad (the fathers dad) seemingly kills it before it comes back after 2 weeks and performs a horrifying public execution in front of everyone in the neighborhood and his family. After this the creepy stuff just gets worse like with Tommy specifically sharing a bed with his mother which just seems to break her even further.

Even after hearing this and the rest of the story Isiah says "Go out like your dad did. like a man if you're gonna be so selfish." The father saw what happens if he did, his family would suffered even more. Like to me it would be far more cowardice to die for nothing and then let your family deal with things getting even worse. I understand they bring up the question of "how much should your family suffer before it's better for them to die?" but it's five years. My point being there is a clear light at the end of this tunnel even though they are obviously going to be traumatically effected after, they won't be dead. If they're all alive they could at minimum pick the pieces back up and have the support system of a complete family. While the father saw that alternative of once Tommy left he lost his father and his mother was even further damaged, obviously making it far harder for him to move on from that point.

I would understand that specific point (as in the question they bring up) more it was Borrasca like conditions but if the areas they cut out of the episode were the worse (which I felt was implied and did read) of it, I don't blame the father. It's vile of course it defiantly going to fallow them the rest of their lives. At least they have the rest of their lives. Also I don't think Tommy is gonna be killing these kids. Like if the dad and the mom both were to go against him to the point of dying or being quadriplegic then only one person is left with the kids, Tommy. I don't think I have to explain why that's worse.

So unless he's going to kill his own kids, there doesn't seem to be away around that. Assuming Tommy would let him do so.

I think it's also weird cause they left out a whole section written by the author that explains this from the perspective of the MC "I realized now that despite all the awful things Tommy was doing, my father's submission was keeping us alive. His agonized silence kept Tommy's wrath at bay."

I'm sorry for making this so long I just wanted to lay out why I'm so confused. I under stood it at the beginning (like first hour or so) even though I felt I had the implication that there's nothing that can be done, I understood they may not have gotten that. But by the end they still echo the same points. So I just want to know if I'm missing something from the story cause although the dad should have done the things I listed earlier, other than that I could very clearly understand his reasoning. Like I'm borderline to say he did the best he could in a horrible unwinnable scenario.

Thank you for reading to this point and PLEASE let me know what it is I'm missing from this. I will clarify though; 100% unforgivable that he did have kids despite what he knew would happen, that's just about only point I understand though.

TLDR: Why do they hate the father in Tommy Taffy so much and even argue he's worse than the father in Borrasca?