Post 176: Why Ross Wouldn't be My Friend

I don't like Ross. When Rachel got off the plane to be with him. I was more than a little upset. She was giving up a major opportunity to be with a guy who clearly did not appreciate her work or support her dreams. I mean, she didn't say she was going to stay in France forever. And he considered moving to England to be with Emily, but decided not to because of Ben. But Ben is older now and Emma, his other child who is younger so less able to travel to visit him, would likely be going with Rachel. Really, if he cared about her, he would have encouraged her to go live her dreams. She was really excited about going and it was a great opportunity. If it continued, I would be willing to bet that she resented him for keeping her from that opportunity.  He showed little to no growth, he never stopped being possessive of her and clearly never learned how important her work is to her. None of the things that they fought about in the past are resolved, it is only a matter of time before they come up again except now she will have this major opportunity weighing against them.

Anyway, here are a few of the reasons I dislike Ross. Though, there are many more. 

Cheater:

The whole "we were on a break" thing for starters. Psychology Today defines a break as "not a breakup: It's a pause from the other person—a period to think without having to be around the other person during the thinking period." As Rachel said "we should take a break" the implication is that it is, in fact, a break not a break up. And, therefore, they were technically still together and Ross cheated. His constant insistence that "we were on a break" doesn't help this either, because even in that he says "we were on a break" not "we were broken up". 

Also, some people have said it was never even decided on. She said, "Look, maybe we should take a break....from us." And then he stormed out. So, it was technically left at "maybe".

Now, as it is a bit of a misunderstanding where he took it to mean broken up, not on a break. It could be argued that it wasn't really cheating. 

If we take out the "we were on a break" thing, Ross still doesn't have the best romantic track record in that regard. He said Rachel's name at his wedding with Elizabeth. He cheated on Julie with Rachel. He cheated on Bonnie with Rachel.  When on a date with another woman, he spent most of the night flirting with his ex-wife. He kissed Charlie despite her being with Joey. Despite dating Mona, he said he would marry Rachel when he found she was pregnant. 

Even if it is taken as a break up rather than a break, he waited less than three hours before sleeping with someone else. And it wasn't just someone else, it was someone that both his closest friends also liked. 

Hypocritical: 

Despite being a cheater himself, he is constantly controlling and overprotective of his girlfriends and love interests without taking into consideration how they feel. He follows Elizabeth, his college age girlfriend, on Spring Break. Because he doesn't trust her not to cheat on him. He embarrasses Rachel in front of a guy she is talking to and throws away phone messages for her from other guys when they are not even dating. When they are dating, he constantly embarrasses her at work and is incredibly paranoid about her even spending time with other guys, which leads to them needing to take a break to begin with. He even considers having one of her love interests departed even though she and Ross hadn't even gone on a date. 

Meanwhile, as he gets upset at Rachel for talking to a male coworker, he is going out to strip clubs. When Elizabeth is rightly worried about him spending time with his first love, ex-girlfriend (who I believe he has actually dated on and off like three times at this point), and closest female friend who also happens to be the person whose name he said at the their wedding, he says he won't do it. Actually, he says he will do it and that he won't spend as much time with her, but then does anyway. He practically asks Rachel to quit her job so she won't be around Mark, and she never even went on a date with him and last he knew Mark was seeing someone else. 

He is constantly talking about work. He does not leave it alone and is constantly trying to get his friends to come to his talks and other talks about his subject area. He practically has an emotional breakdown trying to get them ready to go to a work dinner. He interrupts his first date with Rachel to go to work and constantly puts work first. He expects her to understand that he takes his work seriously, but cannot be bothered to even fake interest in hers. He insists on going with Rachel to a fashion talk (just so she won't go with Mark) pretending he is interested, but then gets bored and basically acts like a child trying to get her attention for the first few minutes and then falls asleep. When she brings up the talk she went to with him and her lack of interest, he basically responds "well, that talk was interesting". He doesn't even concede that they like different things. 

When his child comes over with a Barbie, after picking it out himself, he spends the entire time that Ben is there with him trying to manipulate his son into picking a more "masculine" toy. Considering we learn that he actually used to dress up as a woman, that is even more hypocritical. Other than being against his son having a Barbie, he also ends firing his daughter's male nanny because it seemed weird to him. Despite the fact that the nanny was perfect otherwise and got along great with Emma. 

Insecurities and Overconfidence: 

Based on his insecurities and inability to trust that his girlfriend won't cheat him if given the choice, you'd really think he wouldn't be as overconfident as he is. Rachel makes it very clear that she thinks what he did was cheating, so when she calls to meet with him the fact that he just assumed that she had stopped being crazy and realized life without him sucks is presumptuous (exact quote is: "Well, maybe the crazy fog has lifted and she realizes that life without me.... a-sucks..." from The One With the Tiny T-Shirt). 

And then after they sleep together and she gets pregnant, she tells him she wants to talk to him. She wants to talk to him, because she is pregnant but he assumes it is because he is just too good a lover (I guess?) that women can't just sleep with him once (exact quote is: "I’m just not the type of guy women can have just one night with. Y’know, they-they always seem to want a little bit more." from The One Where Rachel Tells...). Despite the fact that they have slept with each other on more than one occasion while dating. 

This comes a lot with his relationship to his parents. They constantly brag about him and are far more supportive of him than of Monica. In only the second episode of the show their parents are over and basically tell Monica that she isn't made to do great things like Ross is and they go on for along time, with him right there. He literally says nothing. When they go home and it turns out that their father used Monica's boxes of memories to create a wall to protect his Porsche, he helps move his stuff into Monica's boxes (though, clearly doesn't remember their childhood well enough to know what she was actually like). He still makes it about himself wanting to hear his dad tell him about he is a medical marvel while they work. He then gets upset that Monica gets the Porsche instead of him because of it. 

He is incapable of admitting he made a mistake. He gets married to Rachel when they are drunk and instead of getting divorced, he lies to her and tells her he did it because he doesn't want to be "three divorce guy". After their break up, he had a chance to get back together with her if he admitted it was his fault. Which it was. He was the one whose insecurities, jealousy, and lack of respect for her work led to the their constant fighting and the break. On the break, while she contemplated getting back together with him, he slept with someone else. Even if he didn't think he cheated, she made it clear she thought he did and he never apologized for hurting her that way. Most of their fighting about it and running joke for the next season or so was him asserting that "we were on a break". Not, "I made assumptions that we were broken up and that was wrong". He would rather be "right" and deny any culpability, than be with her. Even after he showed up at her office for their anniversary, despite her saying she was too busy, he took over her whole desk and accidentally lit things on fire. He got in her way, he distracted her, he could have burned down the office and when she gets home exhausted after he expects her to apologize for asking him to leave and doesn't see how what he did was wrong or obtrusive in any way.



When she had dreams about the other guys in their friend  group he was jealous but then he practically jumped her while she was having a dream about him. As if the dream was consent to actually do something. She didn't want to sleep with Joey or Chandler after dreaming about them, so why would she want to sleep with him? Honestly, with this in mind rewatching the show makes more sense why he is possessive of her, she exists as his ideal. He always liked her because of her looks and so when it comes to her personality when they are actually together, they often clash (he expresses at multiple points that he thinks she isn't very bright, she is spoiled, and is often vain). He keeps other guys from getting her and doesn't want her with anyone else, even when he is with someone else for that reason. This I think comes up in the fact that he kept count of every time they had sex, which seems really weird and not normal.

Bad Father:

There were 236 episodes of Friends. Of those, Ross's son Ben only appears in 24 of them. Of those 24, one of them involves Ross entrusting the care of a then infant Ben to Joey and Chandler, who leave him on the bus. In another he leaves Ben with Rachel, who couldn't even look after his monkey for one night without losing him. Despite Ben only being in a few episodes, Ross uses his son to get out of things by claiming to watch him to get out of things. He says he can't move to England because of Ben, but he got married without Ben so it doesn't seem like Ben is that big a factor in his life. And then after he has Emma with Rachel, we essentially never see Ben again. 

Emma is also very rarely seen and even when she is seen, she is seen just as often with other friends in the group that Ross. In fact, Joey seems to have a closer relationship with her than Ross. And Ross seemed to have no issue with Emma going to Paris with Rachel. In fact, all of his concerns were around Rachel going. Not once did he bring up being separated from his daughter, or show any indication that he was going to spend any time with his daughter before she went to Paris with her mom or that he had any plans to visit her. 

I mean, Emma was staying with Rachel's mom while she got settled in Paris. Why wouldn't the child's father be the one watching her? Why couldn't he be the one to take her to Paris? Better yet, why isn't he the one taking her? He is her father, shouldn't he actually be acting like it? 

Post 150: What Big Picture? How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days

This is a plot hole that has annoyed me for quite a long time. In the movie How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Andy (main character) justifies her writing for a fashion and beauty magazine and basically "selling out and writing fluff pieces" (she doesn't say that exactly but implies it) is all in hopes that the editor will like her work and give her free reign to write whatever she wants.

Her idea of what she wants to write is serious, hard-hitting pieces on political and social current events. So, my question is, is she an idiot? It's the only way this idea makes any sense.

I took one and only one journalism class in University but I still know this is stupid. A main idea we discussed is 'audience'. It is important to know your audience. So how is it that someone in the industry, who supposedly went to University for this career and has an interest in it, would actually think that there was any way at all that the editor of a fashion and glamor magazine would let her write any of those kinds of articles?

People who pick up those kinds of magazines may be looking for health and dating tips, but what they are really looking for is light and casual reading. Not something that will make them think about the political turmoil people countries away are suffering. There is no way Andy would have actually thought she would get the choice to write those articles for the same magazine. Unless she was an idiot. And it does seem at first like she is thinking of it as paying her dues where she can go somewhere else with this experience but when she is talking to her boss and her boss says she has free reign with in reason for the material that fits with the magazine, she is shocked. She wouldn't have been shocked. It's a fashion magazine, not the Times. It would be like someone working at Disney being surprised when their boss said they couldn't show the kids Saw.

And what makes it seem even more ridiculous is that she has friends at the paper and clearly has worked there awhile and been in the meetings hearing topics discussed, does she really think that the reason those kinds of articles were never suggested or brought up was due to lack of interest by writers alone? How did she not realize it wouldn't fit in with the magazine?

I feel like this is simply a matter of the person writing the movie not actually having any real background knowledge of journalism and a lack of common sense in the matter OR a desperate need to make sure that she was 'different' because heaven forbid she actually enjoy writing about fashion or dating. No, no. It needed to be beneath her in order for her to be deep. I mean, it's fine for her friends, one who we rarely see or learn anything about and the other who is clingy, over-emotional, and insecure. But Andy needs to want a "serious" job. There is really no other reason her character needed to want to write about other things. It doesn't really affect the plot much. And as it is, it actually hurts the plot more than it helps. 

Post 149: No, X-Files, No!

I am a fan of X-Files, I cannot deny it. I love the show and the chemistry between Scully and Fox. But I will shoot myself in the foot (with a rubber band, because I 'm too afraid this will happen) if they make a new series.

The new season is like a mini-series. It has Fox and Scully back in the saddle again, it is like a continuation. It is great.

However, the newest episode "Babylon", just introduced a pretty boy, daydreamer FBI agent and a red-headed, cynical agent. Sound familiar? Sounds like they are trying to introduce a new agent Scully and Fox, so that they can create a spin-off.

Red-head is also a scientific minded agent who doubts Mulder. Pretty boy is overjoyed at the idea of working in the X-Files, he called it is "dream job". AKA, the new generation of X-Files agents that are basically just younger versions of the original.

Guess what new pretty boy's name is? Miller. So, Agent Miller is the new Agent Mulder.
And even more laughable, Agent Einstein is the rational agent. Einstein. Like really? Anyway, she even has the same hair cut as Dana. Which is unfortunate, because she would really look better with bangs.

The entire episode they switch partners. Dana works with mini-Mulder. And Mulder works with mini-Dana.

I don't want a new spin-off series. Especially not like this.

If a spin-off is going to happen, I don't want it to be like the new Annie. I don't want them to just try and recreate the original. It never works. The new mini-Mulder and mini-Scully don't have the same chemistry, they don't have the same presence on screen, they just aren't the same as Fox and Scully.

If they are going to do a new series they should do something different. Even if it is just swapping their genders and making a girl the one that believes. Maybe having two scientific minded people who have to work with some consultant that is totally out there. Maybe two female or two male agents. Even just making it so that they aren't JUST younger versions of the originals.

If people want to see a cynical red head poking holes in a somewhat radical FBI agents belief in aliens, they can watch the original series.

The show that it seems like they are suggesting and setting up ALREADY EXISTS and it is still popular. It still trends on Netflix and the new mini-series with the original Scully and Mulder will send more people back to it.

PLEASE, please do not let them just try to recreate the old X-Files. It never works out as well as they think it will. And, these two new actors - one of whom I actually know from playing Freddie in the unpopular live-action remake movies of Scooby Doo - just don't seem like they are as deep (or even really capable of playing as deep) as the original characters.

I don't want a X-Files Light version. Please, X-Files, keep the original actors or try something new.

Post 120: What Big Picture? Killers

Killers (2010) a movie starring Katherine Heigl and Ashton Kutcher. Basically the plot of the movie is:

Watch a hit-man fall in love with a female control freak. Then watch as a few years later the people in their lives turn out to be killers who try to kill them but fail and die in horrible ways all because of a misunderstanding that doesn't make sense.

Katherine's character is a control freak who meets Ashton's character while she is on vacation. He was a spy and retires after meeting her. They get married and years later his old boss calls him and gives him a post card. Then their neighbors, coworkers, etc. all turn against them and try to kill them.

The big twist at the end? All of the killers sent after them were sent by her father for a large bounty. Turns out Ashton's character's boss was corrupt and when Katherine's dad saw the postcard, he thought Ashton's character was corrupt and because apparently her dad works for the government Katherine's dad thinks Ashton's character is trying to kill him.

My big issues with this?

For one, some of them were their neighbors for years. If Ashton's character just came under suspicion, then why were all these killers already in their lives?

Also, a lot of the killers that attacked the couple, while mainly aiming at Ashton, almost killed Katherine's character in the process. Why her father didn't just kill Asthon himself is beyond me. I mean, he had access and he could have just given him something that made it look like he had an allergic reaction and died.

This would be easy. It would be cheap. And it wouldn't put his daughter in any danger.

But, no, he sent killers after his son-in-law and, at the same time, put his daughter in great danger. Without warning her, helping her, trying to get her out of the way, or even instructing the killers not to hurt her. I mean, why not have her and her mom go to a spa together for a few days. That gets her out of harm's way. Or, do anything at all for that matter? Oh, that's right! It might give away the nonsensical plot twist.

My second issue came at the end, when the father and son-in-law are arguing at gunpoint. The father says that he saw the postcard and wanted to kill Asthon before Asthon killed him. Which didn't really make sense because the postcard was asking for a meeting, not telling him to kill someone. So, it wasn't really definitive proof of anything. I mean, one post card asking for a meeting and suddenly he is sending dozens of people to kill his daughter's husband.

I mean, her father was supposed to be some high level member of the intelligence agency and he didn't even bother to do any more research or observation after that. He didn't try to see how the meeting went or check to see if there were any more communications between them, he just took out a hit. I mean, if he had checked in, he'd have seen that Ashton refused his old boss's offer to get involved in anything and insist he was retired.

My third issue, also with this scene, is the only reason that her dad dropped the gun and calmed down was because she said she was pregnant. He didn't bother seeing if his son-in-law was actually corrupt, he just dropped it when he found out that he was going to be a grandfather. Like really? You weren't that worried about your daughter's safety before. You weren't worried about depriving her of her husband before. But suddenly, it doesn't matter, because she's pregnant.

My last big issue is that a lot of people died over this misunderstanding. And if they actually worked with or for her father, that meant that they were spies working for the government not just killers looking to collect some money. Yet, no one seems to have cared at all that so many people died for nothing. Literally nothing. Dozens of people died. More were injured. People they worked with. People they hung out with. But does any one care that they died over a misunderstanding? Nope. My neighbors tried to kill me so I killed them? I blew up my coworker? Who cares?! I'm going to be a dad. My coworkers were all murdered because I leaped to conclusions? Men and women put their life on the line and will no longer be going home to their families because of me? My son-in-law might be corrupt and trying to kill me? Who cares?! Bust open the champagne, I'm going to be a grandpa.

Post 119: Unrealistic Character Changes

So, I get that Disney and other makers of kid and preteen movies will tone things done and wrap up the story with some sort of happy ending, but it often is way too unrealistic.

The biggest examples I can think of are 1 Chance 2 Dance and Cloud 9.

In both there is a main character and an antagonist that are competing against each other. The antagonist in both goes to extraordinary measures to take out the competition but then, at the end, claps for the main character when they win.

In 1 Chance 2 Dance, the main character and antagonist are both dancers. The antagonist is threatened by the main character, so she steals her partner. But that's not all. She also tricks her into coming to party, where she uses the main character's mother's alcoholism and her crush to hurt her emotionally. But that's not all, either. On the antagonist's behalf, a boy at the party spikes the main character's drink and then tries to get her to lie down and starts to climb on top of her. Now, the main character's love interest pulled him off her, but it is hard to say how far he was supposed to go and what he did as it was, was way over the line. But that still isn't all. The antagonist trips the main character with an intent to injure her, and when the main character is injured, the antagonist insults her again and walks away.

But then when the main character wins she basically shrugs it off and claps for her. After everything she has done to the main character or tried to do to her, it is absolutely out of character for her to not be upset about the main character winning.

In Cloud 9, it is the same ending.

Except in Cloud 9 the main character and antagonist start out on the same team. The main character is not a very good teammate, but the antagonist (the coach) cannot kick her off the team without a reason, so he has his son/her boyfriend get her into trouble.

Except that how he got her into trouble was actually pretty dangerous. She could have gotten seriously hurt. In fact, while they wrap it up like it was just to get her in trouble, it seems more realistic that the dad's actual goal was for her to get hurt, but didn't want to tell his son that.

Anyway, the son and the main character stole someone's sled (which really seems like it should have been enough). They were riding in it and all was well, until the son directed the sled towards a sign, which was really more like a giant billboard, and jumped out so that the main character would crash into it (at his father's behest).

She was lucky she didn't get hurt.

I had a friend when I was younger, a neighbor more than friend, and she cracked her skull open while sledding. She needed 19 stitches. Thankfully, she was alright but it was day and there were a lot of people around to help her. And it was not a steep hill and it was not a big hill, she just hit a patch of ice the wrong way and next thing she knew she was in the hospital.

The main character wasn't on a hill. It was a mountain. And it was steep and there were trees and she was sent directly into a giant sign. And it was night. And the guys she was with ran away, if she had been hurt there wouldn't have been people to help her. She was seriously lucky.

And yet, the coach clapped at the end like him sabotaging her and putting her life in danger were really no big deal.

There have been other shows or movies where this has come up and I don't get it. It doesn't really seem realistic and I'm sure (well, I suspect) I am not the only person out there thinking it is ridiculous and unfair.

Both these people got away with it and it is hard to say which is worse. On the one hand, the antagonist in 1 Chance 2 Dance went further, especially when she drugged the main character, but on the other side the antagonist in Cloud 9 was her coach, an adult who is supposed to take care of his team and be responsible for their safety, not jeopardize it. And they both showed in doing these acts, as well as the mention of the antagonist in 1C2D having a history of this kind of behavior, they will probably continue it.

They got away with it after all.

I would have liked to see the coach fired. Especially since what he did came out in front of her dad (who, technically, signs his paychecks and could have fired him or sued him)  but he wasn't fired and his team wasn't disqualified, it showed no repercussions for his behavior. Same with the antagonist in 1 Chance 2 Dance, she wasn't disqualified, or suspended, or punished, or anything.

So, my biggest problems with this should now be clear: they wouldn't have clapped, it isn't in their nature, and they will do it again, so there is no real happy ending.

Post 105: What Big Picture? The Purge

Let me start off by saying I haven't watched this movie or its sequel. I have a big problem with the movie's premise.

Essentially, according to the trailer and description, the movie is set in a universe like our own, except that every year there is an annual 'Purge' where for 12 hours all crime is legal. During this 12 hours, the country/town/world (I actually don't know what scale the purge is on) falls into chaos.

The main premise of this movie seems to be: the only thing keeping people from turning into thieves, murderers, and rapists is fear of punishment.

This raises a lot of questions for me, both about the movie and about what that would actually mean.

Some of the questions I have:

1. If this was an annual thing, wouldn't stores have really good security? And wouldn't people have a whole heck of a lot of security features on their house?
2. If it is legal for 12 hours and illegal again after, can people be persecuted and/or prosecuted for things that they did during that time once they are illegal again? What if they committed assault during the 12 hours, but then the person died after the 12 hours were up? What about people who committed theft? It is illegal to possess stolen property, so even if it was legal to steal it, it would be illegal to own it.
3. Is this like the Hunger Games, where there is really only a loose explanation of why they are doing this and everyone just accepts it?
4. If this is more than just a city, is the 12 hours different depending on the time zone?
5. If people do steal from work or don't show up to work or hit their boss while it isn't a crime, can they be fired for their actions later?
6. What about religion? Just because murder is suddenly legal, doesn't suddenly mean that there aren't religious or moral reasons not to do it. So, does this proposed place not have religions?
7. If people do turn into murders just like that, then why don't people just lock themselves in a panic room for 12 hours? I mean, is that one person they sort of want dead really worth risking being killed themselves?
8. Why are people suddenly hurting people? I mean, I feel like theft would be a much bigger issue than assault or murder.
9. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is okay. There aren't laws against having affairs or insulting people, but that doesn't make them right. So, are people really just like 'oh, cool murder is legal now; let's go kill that co-worker who was annoying me'? And I mean, what about after? Are their coworkers just going to go back to work and be like "oh yeah, you murdered an entire family of people, but its cool because it was during the purge so can I borrow a stapler?" 
10. Doesn't the idea that it is only the consequences that matter suggest that the people in this place would do all the same things if they thought that they wouldn't be caught? So, it isn't really even the laws that were stopping them to begin with.

Sometimes I consider watching, just to see if any of these questions are answered. However, I keep coming back to the fact that this just seems like such a disturbing idea to me. 

Post 103: What Big Picture?: Hogwarts' Houses

Over thinking, a term used when someone gets nit-picky about the details. Often used when someone loses focus on the big picture when watching a movie, book, or TV show. Basically, they start getting a little too hung up on the fact that reality doesn't always hold a place in works of fiction.

This will be a series where I do just that.

Starting with Harry Potter's famous houses: Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin.

Here are some of the main traits associated with each house:

Gryffindor - individualistic, daring, desire for fame, adventurous. 
Ex. Thor would probably be a Gryffindor.

Hufflepuff - practical, humble, loyal, risk averse. 
Ex. Spiderman would probably be a Hufflepuff.

Ravenclaw - wise, curious, creative, fair. 
Ex. Bruce Banner (not Hulk-Banner) would probably be a Ravenclaw.

Slytherin -  cunning, confrontational, traditional, group-oriented. 
Ex. Natasha (Black Widow) would probably be a Slytherin.

Now, what is my problem with the Houses? I actually have four problems with them.

1.) What's the point?
2.) More harm than good.
3.) Why isn't this setting off red flags?
4.) Stereotyping.

What's the point? It seems very clear that students are divided into houses based on their personality. But, what is the point of that? They still take all the same classes so it isn't like they are being divided to give them the best education. If they were divided and given different classes or at least classes in different styles to best address what they want to learn or how they learn then I would understand it.

However, this does not seem to be the case. So, dividing them by personality seems to serve no purpose.

More harm that good. Separating them into houses by personality means that they get very limited interaction with people who are different than them. Outside of classes, they never really had to work with people that were different. They are even separated for meals. Which means that they are not being properly prepared for when they leave school and have to work in an environment where they might be surrounded by people with different values, ideas, and personalities.

Red flags. I suppose this could be tied in with the first one. However, one thing that annoys me is something that came up in the first book/movie. Ron: "There wasn't a witch or wizard that went bad that wasn't in Slytherin". So, basically, everyone who has ever gone bad - was in one house. And no one stopped and said, 'hm, maybe we should do something about this?' (In the books, this isn't the case but seems to still be the case that like 90% of those who went bad were in Slytherin).

I'm not saying they should assume being in Slytherin makes a person bad, but perhaps they could have put in measures to prevent future Slytherins from going bad. Like maybe classes in tolerance or counselling. Maybe some sort of Muggle outreach. Because a lot of them have problems with Muggles, but really going to a school miles away from any and surrounding them with other people who think muggles are inferior isn't going to help them better accept them.

And I happened across Fanfiction that had a legitimate point about the problems that could come up in allowing Muggle-Born students into magic schools. And it was that because they have a stronger tie to the muggle world they are more likely to inadvertently expose magic. And, looking at Hogwarts curriculum, a lot of the things they are learning will only be helpful if they stay in the magical world.

How are potions or the historical wizards going to help them if they want to be a muggle lawyer?

So, there are some legitimate issues. But, at the same time, not teaching them how to control their magic is just as dangerous. But these are all issues that could be resolved if there were talks and discussions to help address these issues that some of the Slytherins have.

Stereotyping. There is a lot of stereotypes surrounding the houses. Especially in the idea that all Slytherins are villains and Gryffindors are heroes and Hufflepuffs are the "left overs" (even Harry didn't want to be a Hufflepuff).

Let us a take a moment to look at some of the horrible things Gryffindors have done: James' horrible bullying of Snape, the twins’ locking Montague in the Vanishing Cabinet (getting himself out almost proved fatal for him), Hermione hexing the DA parchment, Harry using a hex on Malfoy (without knowing what it would do, causing serious harm, and almost killing Malfoy).

Also, looking at the examples you may also see that separating people also means giving them an enemy. Gryffindors and Slytherins seem to hate each other. But does the school address this?

James bullied Snape. Hermione hit Malfoy. The twins tormented Montague. Harry hexed Malfoy.

A Gryffindor hurts a Slytherin: seems to be a re-occurring theme.  

But they're obviously hero-types. So, it gets overlooked. After Harry hexed Malfoy he got detention. Detention! He almost killed him. Hogwarts is essentially a school where students are not only allowed to carry weapons but encouraged to use them. There should be more classes on how to resolve issues without violence or magic. Especially for Slytherins and Gryffindors whose first instinct appears to be wiping out a wand when ever someone upsets them.

On the other hand, when ever something bad happens everyone looks at the Slytherin house. When the final battle came Slytherins were put on the spot. Like someone from another house couldn't have possibly caved in to the fear of dying? Like maybe the Slytherins didn't want to fight because it would mean fighting family or friends?

At some point, you have to think that they just get to the point where they give in. After being treated like they are destined to turn bad, they start believing it to.

Conclusion: Hogwarts needs to start using these houses to better the school and its students or it needs to get rid of the way they are sorted. Because as it is, they seem to be doing nothing good for anyone.