a) it says, that gender stereotypes are social constructions, which we could say that this is kopernikos logic (how Winfried Schulz has put it) or constructionist theory of representation (Berger and Luckmann)
but
b) then it says, that the biggest culprit are media, which destruct the reality, because they falsely representate the reality, which we could say that this is ptolemaios logic (how Winfreid Schulz has put it) or reflexive theory of representation.
These two are total opposite and either you "believe" in one logic on in the other. Because in the reflexive logic you "believe" in that journalism can be objective and unbiased and that it is the media or journalists who destruct the reality. Or, you "believe" that objectivity is impossible and it should work only such as ideal which you can never succeed in, but you should at least try.
I have a slight feeling, that this construct of critisism is slightly illogical and it uses everything what it can just to support its ideas. Well I do not have any problem with gender studies or feminism - go for it! - but I have feeling that if someone from Gender Studies organization tries to write about media, maybe it should be bullet-proof logic. Both their claims a) and b) are correct, but I have feeling that they are not correct both together, because it says the opposite.
P.S. Well there is also the third theory of representation and it is called "intentional". It says, that the objective "truth" is framed by the intention of the communicator, i.e. if I say A is right, then A is right, even if it is not right, because it is my intention. This theory is in between the reflexive and contructionist point of view, because it says that neither of it is right. Usually it concerns propaganda, manipulation and persuasive techniques.
