I find this puzzling since femininity and masculinity seem to be in direct relation to each other. It means that one cannot exist without the other. This is a question that scholar and author John Tosh addresses in his book A Man 's Place: Masculinity and the Middle-Class Home in Victorian England. However, for now I want to focus on Donaldson's work. In her feminist perspective reading of Charlotte Bronte's novel, Jane Eyre, Donaldson argues in her article, "The Corpus of the Madwoman: Towards a Feminist Disability Studies Theory of Embodiment and Mental Illness." that the “romanticization” of “madness” by feminist writers and critics is “useless” as it paints mental illness as a metaphor for women's rebellion. First let's understand where Donaldson is coming from. Her argument originates from Madwoman in the Attic, by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, “a now classic text of early feminist criticism,” as Donaldson states in the opening sentences of her article. According to Gilbert and Gubar, “mad doubles” exist “in the texts of nineteenth- and twentieth-century women writers” and “function as” social surrogates,” “protecting women writers' anxiety of authorship in a male-dominated literary tradition.” (Donaldson) Basically, women claimed to be “crazy” as a way to rebel against their husbands and social, hegemonic beliefs about domesticity. Both articles, however, focus on the disability aspect and address gender roles through a feminist disability studies perspective. According to Wikipedia, disability studies is “an academic discipline that examines the meaning, nature, and consequences of disability as a social construct. As Garland Thompson says