One day the Karen who lives behind me came to my door, ringing the doorbell and knocking frantically. Upon my opening the door, without any greeting immediately said “You need to replace the fence in my backyard.” I said “no I don’t. That is your fence.” she said “the pretty side faces my yard so it is your fence.” I said “no the prior owner of your house built the fence facing the wrong way and it is completely on your side of the property line.” she said, “show me.”
So I walked her through the house into the backyard, to the fence and showed her the Property line stake placed at the corner of the other neighbors fences. Her fence is actually 6” into her yard.
Seeing this she still stated again that I needed to replace the fence. I said “No”. She then turned, walks through my house and out the front door without even saying another word.
KAREN LEVEL:
8/10 – This Karen is a classic example of entitlement, absurdity, and pettiness. She is also displaying some serious boundary issues by walking through the submitter’s house without permission.
REVIEW:
It’s the age-old tale of Karen vs. Neighbor, and this time, the Karen is claiming that the submitter is responsible for replacing her fence. But as we all know, Karen’s claims are not always based on facts. Upon opening the door, the submitter is immediately bombarded with the demand to replace the fence, with no greeting or pleasantries exchanged. The Karen’s reasoning? The “pretty side” of the fence faces her yard, therefore it must be the submitter’s responsibility. But as the submitter explains, the fence was built by the previous owner of the Karen’s house and is actually 6 inches into her own yard. Despite being shown the property line stake, the Karen still insists that the submitter should replace the fence. And to top it all off, she walks through the submitter’s house without permission before storming off.
SCORECARD:
Entitlement: 9/10
Absurdity: 8/10
Pettiness: 9/10
Hypocrisy: 7/10
Escalation: 8/10
Overall Karen Behavior: 8/10
PERFORMANCE:
The Karen’s performance was spectacular in its entitlement and absurdity. From the demand to replace the fence to walking through the submitter’s house without permission, she truly went above and beyond in her Karen behavior.
VERDICT:
Guilty. The evidence clearly shows that the Karen’s claims are baseless and she has no right to demand the submitter to replace her fence. Her behavior was also unacceptable and disrespectful by walking through the submitter’s house without permission.
OPINION:
This is a classic example of a Karen trying to push their entitlement onto someone else. It’s clear that the Karen did not bother to check the facts before making her demands and her behavior was completely uncalled for.
THE DEFENSE:
It’s possible that the Karen genuinely believed that the submitter was responsible for the fence, but her behavior and lack of consideration for boundaries is inexcusable.
ZINGER:
Looks like this Karen needs a lesson in property lines and basic manners. Maybe she can use that fence to build a wall around her own entitlement.
Leave a Reply