I'm working on an e-course by Lisa Gates of Craving Balance called Fifty Two Times Two. I'll be creating a good practice of addressing two goals per week, which should lead to some pretty amazing results.
The process of selecting goals to address has left me thinking about "want tos" as opposed to "have tos" in our lives. I'm great at addressing "have to" items, but not so great at making time for myself. I'm guessing that I'm not alone in this...
To what extent is postponing personal goals in favor of the needs of others gender-based? How much is it informed by a good ol' Protestant work ethic and self-deprecation?
What informs your goal-setting and how well do you achieve your goals?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Balanced Stone image found here.
4 comments:
As we keep noticing, we are so much alike. So this sounds interesting. I'm going to look into it. Thanks, Jennifer.
i am a weeble-wobble. i used to defer my goals... and focus on others first. then i said the heck with that... i was first. everything else secondary. now i feel selfish about it... but not too selfish. balance should be part of the picture...
you sound so utterly driven! hooray! i am your slothful friend typing while wearing flannel pjs...
wow, this sounds like amazing work you are doing. yes, the have tos do take precedence, and I think it is partially gender-based.
But soon, maybe now, I'm going to have to do some things for myself.
I find that my have to's are divided into 3 categories. 1. The have to's that truly are(job-related, health, home maintenance) 2. The relationship have to's -the chore or obligation you do because it makes someone in your life happy or because it's a necessity for their well-being,and 3. self-imposed have to's - the things you set up for yourself that you really have to examine. Many of these last, I've been discovering are really only want-to's, and once you allow yourself to let go of them, you realize that they never were have tos.
Not sure if this makes sense!
Post a Comment