Why do those who knowingly flout the rules try to present themselves as victims when they don’t get their way? It goes hand in hand with entitlement, I think, and I am so over them.
Right now there is a stoush in progress in a Sydney apartment block, where a woman opted to move in with her dog despite the building having a strict “No Pets” rule in place, something which is fairly common in apartment buildings. But the woman moved in anyway and is now fighting for her right to keep her dog.
Now, being an animal-loving type myself, I can’t help but wonder why she would opt for a living space which bans pets? Common sense would dictate that if you have a pet and you are looking for a place of your own, you would look for one that is pet friendly. That would rule out most apartment blocks. But no, this silly woman moved in with her dog and now is acting put upon because the building management is insisting her dog has to go.
The predicament she has found herself in is all of her own making but that is at the root of the problem with inflated entitlement; these types refuse to accept the rules apply to them too and when they meet an opposing force, they go into shock, and then claim they are being “victimised”.
Well, they aren’t.
This woman reminds me of those who buy into a property in very close proximity to a popular venue, like a pub or club, that has been there far longer than the unit block next door, let alone the new resident who moves in, gets settled and then begins actively complaining about the noise. But complain they do. They want the venue to close, or at least to cut its opening hours and shut down it’s rooftop beer garden (or whatever) because it is disturbing the resident. Really? But if you want peace and quiet you don’t buy a unit next door to a popular pub or club that attracts a lot of patrons and stays open late. So why do these people buy there?
I remember the carry-on with the prominent Sydney family who decided they didn’t like hearing the noise coming from the iconic harbourside venue, Luna Park, and wanted the council to impose all kinds of noise bans. Like, it’s an amusement park. Because of who they were, they did manage to cause some grief, but it was wrong. Once again, don’t want to hear the general public enjoying themselves? Then don’t opt to live close to an amusement park where you’re bound to hear them enjoying themselves at the top of their lungs!!
But this is the thing; there are people out there who do not accept the rules that apply to the rest of us also apply to them. I don’t know why they feel they are above the various laws, but suspect it has a lot to do with how they were brought up. Waaay too much “positive reinforcement” and never hearing the word “No”. Children brought up in this kind of environment become “entitled” very early in life and they never grow out of it. But they do grow into petulant adults who cry bullying and victimhood the moment their desires are stymied by an individual or group who informs them that the rules/conditions which apply to everyone else, actually do apply to them. They are not exempt and in this case, if none of the other residents can keep a pet, then neither can the woman who figured the no pet rule didn’t apply to her and her dog. It did, and it was entirely irresponsible of her, as a pet owner, to place her dog in a position where it may have to be re-homed should she lose her legal battle to keep it there. Unless she opts to move to somewhere where she can keep a pet, which is what she should have done in the first place. It’s what the rest of us would have done.
This woman is not a victim. Overly entitled, yes, but definitely not a victim.