The pagan community has another problem that swiftly needs to be rectified: the idea that Wiccans must be wholly and utterly altruistic. This is a completely unrealistic expectation for anyone in the neopagan culture to attempt to realize.
First and foremost, we're not perfect. No one with any ego (read: with any sense of self-identity) whatsoever can be expected to be selfless. It's simply a contradiction of terms, an actual liability left over from those godforsaken Christian days of serving the enemy we all love to condemn and lament. *rolls eyes and snorts* Yes, this is probably remnant of an ingrown fingernail in your conscience which demands that you deny yourself in order to achieve greatness. This is a viewpoint which plagues both Western and Eastern religious framesets (condemnation and denial of impulses, respectively), and it seems that only sensible independent thinkers can penetrate this veil.
Secondly, I don't believe it's wrong to want a little something for yourself. Even if (Kevin forbid) you adhere to the Rede as a religious text, you're still not breaching it by getting a little something for yourself. You're not a Catholic priest bound to poverty, and you're not a monk in Kathmandu swearing off any and all things material. Chances are, if you're reading this site, you're a pagan in a Western country, which is either capitalist or socialist in nature. Profit is allowed under our systems of government. There's no law (not even a Gardnerian Ordain) that states that one must be completely altruistic at all times. Sometimes, also, the good of the one outweighs all (after all, self-preservation is the foremost instinct). I repeat, there is nothing wrong with self-gain.
Why, you may ask? Well, let's take an analogy here. Let's say Jimmy Silverback decides to give his entire paycheck to ten complete strangers every week. Let's also say that Jim makes $250 a week (for easy math's sake). This divides into portions of $25 apiece each week. Now, let's say Jim Silverback wants to dish out more money. How does he do this? He turns inward and improves himself, by getting a promotion or a better job. Let's say he gets a new job, and makes double what he did last time (which is damn good money: $500 a week). Now, he can give fifty bucks to ten complete strangers every week (or he can double the amount of recipients should he so choose). By gaining for himself a better job, he can even stick to his altruism. But let's say Jim Silverbck isn't quite the ape that his magical name paints him out to be, and he gets a better job. He can not only divide $250 among strangers, he can keep the other $250 for himself. Where's the moral conflict?
So in sum: Self-gain is okay. Self -gain isn't immoral. Self-gain is good, even if you want to be completely altruistic (good luck). Point made in under five kilobytes.
I apologise for the brevity and incoherent demeanour of this rant. It's 3:30 AM, I just got off of work a couple hours ago, have had a stressful evening and have a lot to do this week. However, this needed to be said and the Mirror badly needed updating. So there you have it. I will probably amend this essay as time and sanity allow. Cheers.
If you got here through a link, click here.