Two sides of the selfish gene

When I began The Selfish Gene I started thinking that Dawkins was crazy and that his vision was too negative. I still do but at times I find myself thinking that we humans are extremely selfish beings. Before I found one activity in which we were not selfish, which was how parents took care for their kids. Dawkins defines this as altruistic, which for me is just another way of saying "selfish". Do parents really take care of their kids because they love them or because they have to in order to preserve their genes? I think it's a mix of both. I do not doubt for an instant that love exists, but I'm sure parents take care of us because they have to as well. So in part, even with the concept which I thought was selfish-free, we actually are selfish, which is dissapointing. Another concept which I thought was selfish-free was teamwork, but do we really use teamwork to help each other or just to take as much advantage of the others as possible? For example, I was given an example by a friend the other day: When ancient humans lived, the men would go out to hunt while the women stayed with the children, and men would go hunting in groups to "help each other", but if you think about it, it's because they knew it was too dangerous to go out hunting alone. In other words, they knew that if there were 20 men it was less likely that they were killed, since they had a 1/20 chance of being killed if something happened, therefore they were just taking advantage of the others, and at the same time helping each other, because the more men, the less chances they had of being killed. It is because of this that I can conclude that men are both altruistic and selfish, but I would say unfortunately mostly selfish.