Freud’s “Family Romance” gives an interesting perspective to how we see one’s core family in different ages. I find truth, as well as logic, in some of the things freud mentioned in the Family’s Romance. One of which is Freud’s approach to how a child sees his parents in a sense of utopia. One refers to his parents as all-can-do guardians where the father is the strongest of all men, and the mother is the most loving of all women, “his father seemed to him the noblest and strongest of men and his mother the dearest and loveliest of women.” I recall my personal experience where I was admiring my parents, sometimes it was on the spectrum of obsession  where I would not let go of my parents to go to party, and forced them to stay home. In addition, another Freudian theory that I agree with is the fact that we do not know who our father is, but we definitely know who our mother is because she is the one who gave us birth. In monotheistic religions such as Islam and Christianity, the common belief is that one will be a Christian or a Muslim because one’s father and paternal grandfather are christians or muslims. Yet, in Judaism one would be counted as a Jew if one’s mother and the maternal grandmother are jewish.Similarly, Freud’s approach is that, “pater semper incertus est’, while the mother is ‘certissitna.’” this approach is the main reason why Jews are counted as Jews by the mother and maternal grandmother. On the other hand, I do not agree with Freud’s approach on rivalry between the father and son. This situation depends on the Alpha of one’s home rather than the gender. One’s mother or father’s dominant persona in the house is what will trigger arguments. Hence, if one’s mother is dominant, then arguments most likely will be with her, rather than with the father of the house