Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the sacrifices I make for my kids feel like the exact opposite of self-gain. "Do something I want to do" vs "do something the kid would benefit from" is a choice presented to every parent every day. I don't think that the possibility that the latter might have some indirect self-benefit keeps it from being an act of altruism, for any reasonable definition of altruism. I mean, "some kind of evolutionary advant…
That's easy to answer. Taking care of your children is not aultruism, it's a genetic inevitability. Your genes have a 'selfish' desire to propogate themselves into the future. Your children are the means of doing this. To protect this investment your genes have gifted you with hormones that make you a happy and willing slave to these little bundles of genetic immortality. :-)
Common misunderstanding, but this is not true. Genes do not have any desires at all.
Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene" to explore a metaphor, not explain how biology actually works. He thought it would be an interesting way of looking at evolution, and he was right. It was so interesting that people started taking him literally.
Anyway, it seems obvious that taking care of kids is not a genetic inevitability, because of the large numbers of parents who fail to do a good job of taking care of their kids.