Should a woman sacrifice her dreams for her marriage to succeed?

Want a strong reaction? Ask any man the same question and you will see the double standard emerge...

That has a lot to do with what sacrifices you are talking about making and what a person's real dreams are. Sometimes dreams deferred are not necessarily dreams lost. Or that you lost anything you really wanted all that much. If a person, it really isn't so much about gender or women submitting to anything, but a person walking with a partner in tandem then yea I think a certain degree of sacrifice is wise. If a person completely sells themselves out then no I think that diminishes them too much. Hopefully both partners love each other enough to strive together so both individuals grow and bloom intertwined.

No, she shouldn't. If the man she wants to marry is a decent sort of man; he would support her with her dreams, not take them away. JMO

Looose yoooour dreeeeamsss
and ...you ...will loose your mind.. in life unkind

Of course that's ~ The Rolling Stones~ Ruby Tuesday

That's some of my favorite lyrics that reminds
me to stay the course.

Having said that,she better drop everything!
its a jk people, relax.

Its a decision she needs to embrace then start down the new path and not let the shadows of the past darken the doorstep of their future.

If she can't do that with both feet in then don't
as it won't save the marriage, she will look at the marriage as resentment.

Agree; And for the men who do take away dreams such a price they pay squashing the life out of their partner when they could be so happy in the shared dreams/success.

I keep expecting some dynamic guy to jump up and hitch with your Star Navy Girl. You still impress the heck out of me.

for the marriage to succeed? I guess it takes both man and woman to dream of a successful marriage,,,and then there is no feeling of 'sacrifice',,,

Sacrifice

¶

Sacrifice is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man's virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less selfish, than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.

This applies to all choices, including one's actions toward other men. It requires that one possess a defined hierarchy of rational values (values chosen and validated by a rational standard). Without such a hierarchy, neither rational conduct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices are possible.

The Virtue of Selfishness

The Ethics of Emergencies,

Sacrifice does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. Sacrifice does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. Sacrifice is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don't.

If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor's child and let your own die, it is.

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.

You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.

If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you,you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body. It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.

Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.

If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a sacrifice: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who's willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.

Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice,no values, no standards, no judgment,those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil.

The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral,a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it can't impart to men any personal stake in virtues or values, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By its own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.

For the New Intellectual

Galt's Speech,


Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one's selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a sacrifice for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife's survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him as the ethics of altruism would require. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference between Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice,nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.

The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice.

The Virtue of Selfishness

The Ethics of Emergencies,


The failure to give to a man what had never belonged to him can hardly be described as sacrificing his interests.
The Virtue of Selfishness

The Conflicts of Men's Interests,


It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there is someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.

For the New Intellectual

The Soul of a Collectivist,


http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html

the dilemma about "Sacrifice" and the notion that it is proper belongs into the Realm of tribalist Collectivism!

once a woman sacrifices her kitchen and bedroom duties,you've already lost her.....

No, if the man I am with can not or does not support my dreams he is not the right man for me. I also feel that if I give up on what I have wanted since I can remember for someone else I will feel resentful. I am moving towards my dreams (I am going to school for my masters in counseling, want to get my doctorate) so any man who comes into my life needs to get in where he fits in, and if he cant do that...see ya!

Crush the dreams.. crush them like an Ant
break the spirit... break their will
give it all to them today.. and take it all away tomorrow.
Oh I forgot, "don't do on to others that you don't
want done on to yourself". ..
wait a minute...this didn't just come to me in a
dream,did it? I must of learnt this somewhere. yes I would do everything
In my 'power'to help her dreams along.
BUT that's not the question.

This is so true. I think this when resentment kicks in when someone crushes you dream as the "what if" starts to come about. I would equally support a man with his dreams as well as it is a two way street. I think as far as any guy hitching up with me; that ship has long sailed but thanks just the same for the kind words.

Wouldn't that be a sad "Relationship"
Love and Marriage should be give and take
Equals !
Besides when you truly love someone
You should want to lift them up !
Never try to tear them down...

Wow, I'm speechless ... Wholeheartedly agree with you, but normally you only got the one thing to say

Why should the woman be the only one to make the sacrifice?

A successful marriage takes sacrifice by both partners.

Yes Sir, it sure does

I agree.

B()()BS!!

@ @