Sisters crossing their legs

[katherineH]

I visited a religious community recently and the novices were sharing what it was like learning to conduct themselves as sisters and learning "the tricks of the trade."  One of the things they mentioned was that sisters don't cross their legs, in chapel or elsewhere. They made it sound like this was true for communities across the board and is a longstanding tradition within religious life.  Is this true? Is there an actual rule against it written somewhere or is it just proper to certain communities?

[Swami Mommy]

Did they explain what the reasoning was behind this rule?

[be_thou_my_vision]

That is true-- several communities that I know well do not cross their legs. It is seen as "unladylike" although in today standards, it is in fact ladylike to cross one's knees. We as were told it was acceptable to cross our ankles, but not our knees. I think it's just part of general religious decorum.

 

Edited October 23, 2016 by be_thou_my_vision

[Sister Leticia]

This is most definitely NOT a rule across the board. It used to be a general convention or tradition in religious communities, largely influenced by what was considered "ladylike" behaviour in society, especially at the time of the community's foundation. "Ladies" didn't stride, run around playing energetic sports, sit with their legs stretched out and so on - and if they crossed their legs it was just at the ankle, which wouldn't have been visible beneath their long skirts.

Nowadays some communities still have this convention. It might be an actual rule for some, but could also simply be the preference of the superior or NM, who enforces it within her area of authority. For example, a friend of mine had 2 NMs. The first one had no opinions or preferences about how anyone sat. But she became ill, a new one was appointed and the second NM told her she shouldn't cross her legs in chapel - but she could sit how she liked elsewhere. My friend understood that this was simply her NM, who had been formed in this way and held on to it, and not a congregational thing. So for the rest of her noviciate she obediently prayed with both feet on the floor. After she made her vows and moved out of the noviciate to a different community she returned to sitting in what she found the most comfortable position - with her legs crossed.

But that's an exception - mostly, in apostolic orders over here in the UK, a comment would only be made if someone sat or held herself in an especially ungainly way, or stooped or looked awkward or uneasy in her body language. But again, that can depend on the perceptions of the person responsible.

(Typed whilst sitting with my legs crossed )

[Spem in alium]

I cross my ankles all the time, especially in chapel (and including right now, actually!)  Legs not so much, I find it less comfy. But it's definitely not a generalised rule that sisters shouldn't cross their legs.

[Quasar]

My understanding is that leg-crossing not good for hip alignment (important for healthy, pain-free joints) or for circulation, so it's probably not a bad practice for sisters to choose to sit some other way!  (I type this as I sit here with my legs crossed.  Gah!  Bad habits.)

What an interesting historical detail, though!  I had no idea that leg-crossing was ever not considered ladylike and that religious communities had a certain sitting practice.

 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Quasar

[NadaTeTurbe]

At home, I was always taught to never cross legs in public because it was neglected (also it's bad for your health). 

[katherineH]

Thank you everyone for your responses.  It does seem like a reflection of feminine standards of the time, standards which may be a bit antiquated today.  I've also heard the comment that crossing legs at the knees in chapel is disrespectful as it projects a casual demeanor, in the same way as if someone were slouching or had their legs spread out.

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

We don't cross our legs...in public. I had a friend who had a sister in a traditional community in France and I saw a picture of her sitting with her legs crossed! So, it may be that the custom is looked upon differently in the USA and Europe.

It used to be that you couldn't even cross your ankles! Shudder!

I remember that it was hard for me to get out of the habit of crossing my legs. Now, I wouldn't find it comfortable.

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, coralieprincess said:

I know a particular monastery in Europe where it is forbidden to cross one's legs, and I was pretty shocked when I discovered this. I know that religious communities may have a lot of rules, but I certainly didn't expect them to micro-manage the way a person sits, especially when in modern society, it is perfectly acceptable to sit cross-legged.  It was especially not allowed to cross legs in chapel, refectory, or, really, anywhere with other people.... I thought maybe it was just that particular monastery.  At first I didn't even realize it was an actual rule, because most of the sisters were rather elderly, so I just assumed they didn't cross legs out of choice, because older people normally don't. 

But I suppose it makes me feel better to see that it is more common than I had thought.

I heard about this in one community and thought what you did. I still think it. There's enough we need to work on to become holy without worrying about stupid things like what Victorians thought was appropriate seating posture for women. Just because monastic life has regulations doesn't mean it has to regulate everything. It ought to regulate what matters for holiness, and leave alone what doesn't.

Every time I come across something like this I'm reminded of the many references in the Bible to turning aside from the commandments of God: In Proverbs, Deuteronomy, etc., the passages always mention turning to the right OR to the left. What does that mean? We can go two ways: too lenient or too strict. We shouldn't ignore any of God's commandments, but we shouldn't invent any either. What He gave us is not just necessary, but also sufficient.

[dominicansoul]

Community's are all different and come up with their own little rules.  They have their reasons.  As long as they aren't escorting women into abortion clinics, its all fine by me.

 

 

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

If one can't be obedient to ordinary community customs than one won't be able to be obedient to the bigger things that come our way and we are asked to accept and embrace through obedience. 

My community is the last to be regulating about every little detail but there are things that taken as a whole are part of a self-discipline and self-denial. Crossing legs was entirely part of life when I entered 25+ years ago but I was told it was not our practice so I learned to get used to. We don't kneel with our elbows on our stalls and our heads in our hands, we don't sit sort of doubled over or casually during times of public prayer. Privately, we can do as we wish.

The monastic way of life (and for that matter the christian way of life) is about the whole person. How we act with our bodies does have an effect on our being and can have an effect on others. 

Coming to choir to pray day after day, 7 times a day can, over time, be extremely demanding on you. One wants to just collapse in the stall and get comfortable. To have a certain common deportment helps everyone! It really does! 

Trust me, these things are little and they become second nature in no time. There are bigger fish to fry! :-)

[Gabriela]

My point is that the rule of obedience can be used to justify obedience to things that are downright silly, for the sake of obedience alone. But one can learn obedience sufficiently well from all the other things one has to be obedient in that DO matter. The rest is dross. Or overkill. Or whatever you want to call it.

I agree that what one does with one's body makes a difference to one's self and others. But I also think that what one does with one's body can, for the most part, be trusted to an individual's conscience with perfectly satisfactory results. The community regulates enough (in most cases) and needs to trust the individual to make decisions about things like this, unless some kind of serious community disturbance is resulting from the individual making poor decisions. Another example of community over-reach that I've heard of is how a woman handles her period: I've heard some communities refuse to allow women to use tampons or menstrual cups. That's nobody's business but the individual woman's. Only a bunch of virgins (and obviously, no offense intended, but I'm serious) would think that inserting a tampon or menstrual cup could ever in any way be construed as similar to sexual intercourse. If some women prefer to use pads, that's great. But no woman should tell another woman that she has to use pads because there's a danger of her becoming sexually aroused if she uses something else. That's just absurd, and many women have very good reasons for not using pads, and some women's lives are considerably complicated by pads, which hardly seems to be the point of the "simple" religious life.

We've had this conversation in another thread before, though I can't remember which one: Women's communities tend to over-regulate. If you look at how men apply obedience and how women apply it, it's a world of difference. Men give one another much more freedom and privacy and trust one another more to make the right decisions independently. Why don't women do that? Why do they think they have to make rules about every little thing?

[Quasar]

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

We've had this conversation in another thread before, though I can't remember which one: Women's communities tend to over-regulate. If you look at how men apply obedience and how women apply it, it's a world of difference. Men give one another much more freedom and privacy and trust one another more to make the right decisions independently. Why don't women do that? Why do they think they have to make rules about every little thing?

Yes!!!  This is true outside of the convent as well.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Quasar

[Pax17]

I think women are socialized more strictly in general.  When I was growing up in the 60s, a girl had to be "lady like"...there were specific codes of dress ("Don't wear white after Labor Day;" your shoes and handbag were supposed to match) and behavior.  There were rules for young men, but they were less strictly enforced ("Boys will be boys.")  In the end, it came down to your behaving acceptably so you could be seen as a "good catch" for marriage.