I get the feeling that you don't consider bringing home the bacon while working a potentially life-threatening job going equally far as being a stay-at-home mom...

At a certain level (around 25% above poverty I believe) money no longer has much of an impact on the way a child turns out (in a 1st world country). "Potentially life-threatening" has no use here. He could be a paper-pusher and he could be an oil-rig operator, he's sacrificing for his family, but this isn't exclusive to fathers. You could replace any male with the same job and it'd make little difference.

• We could also look into how many fathers died trying to defend their families in war, compared to how many mothers...*

Yes, we've established fathers will sacrifice themselves for their children, this doesn't refute any of my points.

You can equally gain some benefit from having any mother figure. There's no replacement for mother AND father though. ESPECIALLY with boys, but also with girls.

In psychology unconditional support supersedes life-preparedeness/sacrifices, ergo mother's care > father's care.

A boy without a father will naturally gravitate to the nearest father figure, and is more likely to be "adopted"/mentored under said figure, than with a mother figure (which judging by the phrase's usage compared to its male counterpart, is not a thing).

Because a father's love is totes generic or even non-existent and replaceable by any person with a dick. This is literally what you sound like.

This is hyperbolic and dodges the point. A father's love is not usually of the unconditional kind. It is stern and disciplinarian.

I literally said "So, you're right, perhaps it's not you that's sexist, just what you're proposing here." No debating of your character, just your points.

Contradicts with your previous quip:

It shows.

There's absolutely no need to get hostile here. If you don't agree with a point, use your words to prove it false. Being emotional will only serve to disqualify your view in the onlooker's minds.