Does My Mommy Love My Sister More Than Me?

As Dawkins advances his "genealogical" word-army towards us, we start to find the text somewhat interesting after tedious chapters. He mentions something uncomfortable, something that I am sure of, everybody has thought about one time or another. The uneasy matter of a mother loving your bratty, snotty little sister more than she loves you: "Should a mother have favourites, or should she be equally altruistic towards all her children?"(80).

After omitting the fact that Dawkins is messing with our stability in our family and leaving us to think that maybe while I'm reading his book, my mom is actually spending quality time with my sister (which is actually true, and on my birthday).

If you tried to ask your mother who does she love the most her answer will always be the same: "I love all of my beautiful kids equally". The major way of finding out, is by starting to feel that monster inside you eating up your heart. This is most commonly known as jealousy.

The examples he gives, are actually non-helpful since through out the book, Dawkins uses examples that do not apply to the modern day human. My mom does not love me less than my sister because she drinks more milk, than I do, or that I'm killing my sister y drinking more milk from my mother!

But, yes, I get the point of P.I. Time is love in this matter. But I still think that Dawkins' theory is old, and does not quite apply nowadays. The original question contained the word "should", so my answer would be no. Except under an extreme case of life and death, and the second child has no possibility of living, or striving, then yes, time is better spent with the first healthy child.

In a human society preference would never be accepted, and in the conditions most people live, this scenario is not possible, and rather odd. Human mothers should be equally altruistic towards all of their children. That is the most reasonable situation.