There is a strange way people misunderstand gentleness, kindness, softness, and patience.
When some look at a person who is patient, accommodating, fair, slow to anger, reluctant to escalate, and inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt—Why infer weakness?
Some imagine that person must be malleable. Suggestible. Gullible. Naïve. Impressionable. Easy to manipulate.
But those qualities do not necessarily describe the person being observed.
They may describe the observer’s expectations of what can be extracted from them.
That distinction matters.
Because there is a profound difference between a person who cannot resist you and a person who does not yet see a reason to resist you.
The misreading
A person who is trying to do the right thing may give you time.
They may listen.
They may forgive.
They may make room for your mistakes.
They may believe what you tell them about who you are and who you intend to become.
They may choose amelioration over escalation because making a situation better is more important to them than winning.
None of that means they have surrendered their judgment.
Yet patience is often interpreted as permission.
The reasoning becomes almost embarrassingly simple:
They haven’t stopped me.
Therefore:
I can continue.
And so a person’s patience becomes a resource to be consumed.
Their attention.
Their time.
Their labor.
Their money or other material resources.
Their emotional energy.
Their admiration.
Their willingness to reassure.
Their sexual access.
Their forgiveness.
Their willingness to keep explaining, understanding, accommodating, and trying again.
The person who is patient can become trapped in an inversion where their virtue subsidizes someone else’s behavior.
That is not what patience means.
The sword that remains sheathed
Jordan Peterson’s appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, episode #1070, recorded in 2017. At about 1:06:22, Peterson discusses the Beatitude:
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”
He says he had always found it puzzling because meek sounded like weakness. Then he says that, after studying the biblical Greek and various commentaries, he came to understand meekness as strength that is under control:
“Those who have swords and know how to use them, but keep them sheathed, will inherit the world.”
The Peterson formulation is explicitly not “be less powerful.” It is: develop the capacity, competence, aggression, judgment, etc., and then develop the self-command to govern it. His “sword” metaphor is exactly that: capacity + voluntary restraint.
He explains that it the word used in older text is Praus.
The Greek word praus does not require us to imagine weakness. Peterson’s memorable image is of someone who possesses a sword and knows how to use it, but keeps it sheathed.
To me this is Samurai as seen in Wuxia.
That changes the entire proposition.
The important fact is not that the sword is absent.
It is that the person has the capacity for force without being governed by the impulse to use it.
That is much closer to self-mastery than passivity.
The meek person may be capable of anger without being ruled by anger.
Capable of confrontation without needing confrontation.
Capable of withdrawal without making every disagreement a dramatic exit.
Capable of imposing a consequence without needing revenge.
The restraint is meaningful precisely because there is something being restrained.
A person without capacity is not necessarily meek.
They may simply be powerless.
Meekness, in the stronger sense, is governed capacity.
Patience is not an agreement to remain available
There is another distinction that becomes important here.
I learned a long time ago that you cannot change another person.
They have to want to change themselves.
So when someone tells you they want to become better, more responsible, more engaged, more honest, more capable—or simply wants to build something better with you—you cannot manufacture that development for them.
You can only give them the opportunity to demonstrate it.
That is what patience can be.
Not “I will fix you.”
Not “I will tolerate anything indefinitely.”
Rather:
“I believe you are capable of choosing differently. I will give you room to demonstrate that choice.”
And then you watch.
Because eventually behavior becomes evidence.
Promises tell you what someone says they intend to do.
Effort tells you what they are actually investing in.
Time makes the difference visible.
Months of behavior can tell you far more than a spectacular beginning.
The pitch
Sometimes the beginning is compelling.
There is mirroring: You understand me.
Love-bombing: I have never felt this way before.
Shared values: I want the same things you want.
Promises: I’m moving toward that life too.
It can feel like recognition.
Like finally finding someone who sees what you see.
But a promise is not yet a pattern.
And a pitch is not yet a character.
The question eventually becomes very simple:
Where does the effort go?
Not where does the rhetoric go.
Not where do the apologies go.
Not where do the explanations go.
Where does the effort go?
Because people reveal priorities through repeated allocation of time, attention, energy, and resources.
Eventually, behavior becomes more trustworthy than the presentation.
That isn’t cynicism.
It is evidence.
When the promise becomes an accusation
The particularly painful situation is when the person who promised movement toward something better eventually resents the existence of the expectation they themselves created.
The request was never:
“Become someone I invented for you.”
It was:
“Become the person you told me you wanted to become.”
But that distinction can disappear.
The disappointment that follows can then be reframed as criticism.
The expectation becomes pressure.
The discrepancy between promise and behavior becomes an accusation against the person who noticed it.
And sometimes the accusation becomes even more elaborate: You are emasculating me.
^-.-^ [Robot cleaned that up a lot! My exact words: It was a pitch. Lovebombing, mirroring and became obvious deception with months when behavior reveals where effort is put. The promise to move toward better, became resentment darvo-ed into accusations of de-masculating.
Ironic, being put into the position of having to be the “bigger man” at every turn than the MEN I was in relationships with, then shamed for a robbery of something in them that never showed up.]
That reversal is especially strange when the qualities being requested are precisely the qualities the person originally claimed to value in himself.
Responsibility.
Competence.
Integrity.
Initiative.
Courage.
Reliability.
The request for those qualities can somehow become evidence that the other person is taking them away.
But there is a fundamental problem with that accusation:
You cannot rob someone of a quality they never demonstrated.
You can expose its absence.
The peculiar burden of being “the bigger man”
There is another irony here.
If one person is consistently patient, forgiving, reflective, restrained, willing to repair, and willing to give another person another chance, that person may eventually find himself occupying the role of “the bigger man” at every turn.
That person absorbs the conflict.
They regulate themself.
They tried to understand.
They make another attempt.
They leave room for the other person to rise to the occasion.
And then, paradoxically, they can be accused of depriving the other person of something.
But what exactly was taken?
Was their opportunity to demonstrate courage taken?
Their opportunity to take responsibility?
Their opportunity to make an effort?
Their opportunity to become the person they claimed they wanted to be?
No.
The opportunity was there.
It simply wasn’t taken.
And eventually the patient person has to stop confusing another person’s unrealized potential with their demonstrated character.
That isn’t punishment.
It is recognition.
Self-mastery does not mean managing another adult
This is where meekness and self-mastery meet.
Self-mastery does not mean endlessly mastering yourself so that someone else never has to master themselves.
It does not mean becoming so regulated that another person’s dysregulation can continue indefinitely without consequence.
And it certainly does not mean taking responsibility for another adult’s desire to change.
The mature position is more demanding than either aggression or submission:
I will govern myself. You must govern yourself.
I can give you room.
I cannot walk the path for you.
I can believe your stated intention.
I cannot manufacture the effort that would make it true.
I can be patient.
I cannot make patience synonymous with permission.
I can keep the sword sheathed.
I do not have to pretend there is no sword.
Justice without domination
This is also where restraint becomes compatible with justice.
Justice does not require retaliation.
But neither does justice require unlimited accommodation.
The alternative to domination is not surrender.
The alternative to revenge is not consequence-free behavior.
There is a middle position:
proportion.
To respond to what actually happened.
To distinguish explanation from excuse.
To distinguish potential from performance.
To distinguish someone’s feelings about a boundary from the legitimacy of the boundary itself.
And perhaps most importantly:
to stop using your own goodness as evidence that you must continue tolerating what is not good for you.
Meekness is not making yourself endlessly available for extraction.
It is the capacity to remain governed by your principles even when you possess the power to do otherwise.
The final reversal
Perhaps the deepest mistake is thinking that a restrained person is harmless because they are unwilling to cause unnecessary harm.
Those are not the same thing.
A person can be exceedingly patient and exceedingly difficult to move.
They can be compassionate without being manipulable.
Fair without being gullible.
Forgiving without being forgetful.
Peaceful without being passive.
And capable of force without being controlled by the desire to demonstrate it.
That is the reversal contained in praus.
The sword is not missing.
It is sheathed.
And the fact that someone has not drawn it should never have been interpreted as permission to keep testing how far you can push.
Because eventually the most important question is not:
“How much will this person tolerate?”
It is:
“What does this person believe is right—and what will they do when the time comes to act on it?”
That is not weakness.
That is self-government.
^-.-^ Not bad on the clean up. The original rant had much more claws.
[O_O]
Footnotes: Jordan B. Peterson, The Joe Rogan Experience, episode #1070, 2018, approximately 1:06:22–1:07:40. Peterson discusses Matthew 5:5 and interprets meekness through the metaphor of having a sword and keeping it sheathed.
Matthew 5:5 uses the Greek πραεῖς (praeis), related to praus (πραΰς). Greek lexicons commonly gloss the term as “meek,” “mild,” “gentle,” or “humble.” The “strength under control” formulation should therefore be understood as an interpretive framing, not as a literal one-word dictionary definition.
Sarah Harsey and Jennifer J. Freyd, “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO): What Is the Influence on Perceived Perpetrator and Victim Credibility?” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 29, no. 8 (2020): 897–916. DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2020.1774695.
Leave a comment