Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Alanna Berger
Brittany Bowman
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Cheryn Hong

Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo

Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White 
Lola Yang

ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND 
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

T

he sun has captivated 
our 
hearts 
and 
imaginations 
for 
millennia. Every organism on 
Earth is powered by the sun. 
Even our energy sources — coal, 
natural gas, wind, hydroelectric 
— 
are 
indirectly 
generated 
through solar power. But what 
really excites me is solar power 
itself. Humans have used solar-
thermal power to make fire or 
heat or pump water since the 
7th century B.C. We figured out 
how to convert solar energy 
directly into electricity in 1839, 
with the first photovoltaic cell. 
These three technologies have 
evolved and entered the market 
at wildly different paces and 
success rates. 
Ancient 
hot-water 
solar 
panels evolved into rooftop 
hot-water 
solar 
panels, 
famously 
installed 
on 
the 
White House by President 
Jimmy Carter in 1979, and also 
into concentrated solar power 
panels (CSPs), first developed 
in 1968 by Professor Giovanni 
Francia. CSPs use sophisticated 
mirrors to concentrate sunlight 
to heat liquids to extreme 
temperatures. 
Through 
additional 
processes, 
these 
hot liquids can be converted to 
electricity or stored for future 
use. Unlike CSPs, photovoltaics 
(PVs) convert solar energy 
directly into electricity. The 
most common type of PV is 
crystalline 
silicon, 
which 
dominates 90 percent of the 
solar cell industry. However, 
PVs raise the problem of 
intermittence — the amount 
of available sunlight varies 
with time of day and weather 
conditions. This means that 
PVs cannot meet electricity 
demand in real-time without 

battery 
storage. 
Battery 
chemistry further complicates 
this 
process, 
introducing 
additional barriers of costs, 
production 
and 
waste. 
It 
is for this reason that the 
photoelectrochemical 
cell 
(PEC) model is particularly 
exciting. PECs convert solar 
power directly into chemical 
fuels. The most common type 
of PEC cell is a hydrogen fuel 
cell, which converts water 
into 
hydrogen 
fuel. 
This 
hydrogen fuel can be stored 
and transported until needed 
to generate electricity. This 
process works by employing a 
hydrogen fuel cell: Hydrogen 
fuel passes through a platinum 
catalyst 
and 
mixes 
with 
oxygen to produce electricity 
and water. In this process, 
new 
complications 
emerge 
concerning the cost of catalysts 
and the design of safe, reliable 
fuel cells. Regardless, the PEC 
model eliminates the need for 
battery storage and overcomes 
the intermittence of PVs.
Despite 
these 
exciting 
technologies, solar energy only 
makes up 1.5 percent of energy 
production 
in 
the 
United 
States. One of the biggest 
challenges has been the cost 
(which is measured in cents 
per kilowatt hour), with fossil 
fuels clocking in around five 
cents per kWh. However, solar 
energy is starting to compete 
with fossil fuels. Utility-owned 
silicon PVs have dropped in 
cost from 23 cents per kWh in 
2010 to an average of six cents 
per kWh in 2017. The cost of 
utility-owned solar panels will 
typically remain lower than 
the decentralized alternatives 
— solar panels on residential 
or 
commercial 
buildings. 

However, 
an 
attractive 
alternative is a power purchase 
agreement (PPA), where a 
utility 
company 
purchases 
electricity from a third party 
that owns the solar panels. 
The cost of solar PPA has also 
dropped significantly over the 
years, to less than three cents 
per kWh in 2018 with some 
geographical variance. Every 
state has a unique energy 
profile, 
though 
none 
are 
dominated by solar power.
Of course, all is not lost. 
Solar research has promoted 
rapid growth of solar capacity: 
The U.S. saw a 16 percent 
increase 
in 
installed 
PV 
capacity in 2018 to 626,000 
megawatts. 
Globally, 
we’re 
projected to achieve a terawatt 
(or one million megawatts) of 
PV capacity by 2023. CSPs in 
the U.S. reached an installed 
capacity of 1,815 megawatts in 
2018. PECs are not quite ready 
for commercialization due to 
strict material demands and 
limitations in hydrogen fuel 
cell technology. CSP, PV and 
PEC solar cells demonstrate 
benefits 
and 
limitations 
concerning 
energy 
storage, 
material 
input 
and 
waste 
production. 
The 
market 
disproportionately 
favors 
silicon PV solar cells which 
does not accurately represent 
the wealth of knowledge and 
advancement in the solar cell 
field. Our ability to capture 
solar power is a marvel; it’s 
what makes us human. And 
we’re 
not 
slowing 
down 
anytime soon.

Desislava Dikova is a senior 

in the College of Literature, 

Science & the Arts and can be 

reached at ddikova@umich.edu.

CAMILLA MUNACO | COLUMN
Dismantling hidden sexism in contemporary media
I

n Sarah Boxer’s “Why Are All 
the Cartoon Mothers Dead?”, 
she highlights the injustice 
done to mothers in children’s 
animated films. Boxer’s analysis of 
cartoons, ranging from “Ice Age” 
to the Mickey Mouse universe, 
exposes 
the 
systematic 
social 
suppression of women and hidden 
misogyny found within seemingly 
innocent cartoons. Boxer is a 
cultural critic and writer, and her 
article has shaped the way I view all 
forms of media today. Her detailed 
unpacking 
of 
characters 
and 
plotlines in animated films inspired 
me to begin questioning women’s 
ultimate purpose in different types 
of media and helped me notice the 
oppressive and often sexualized 
way women are depicted in popular 
culture. 
Growing up in a traditional 
household, the depiction of women 
by those around me was heavily 
influenced by the old-fashioned 
mannerisms of a typical Sicilian 
family. My father’s parents came 
to the United States as immigrants 
from Sicily, and therefore had a 
strict view on the role of a woman. 
None of my aunts on my father’s 
side attended college or had much 
freedom when deciding what 
to do with their life. This wasn’t 
necessarily a bad thing, as they all 
were content with getting married 
in their early twenties and taking 
up the tasking job of being a stay-at-
home mother. From a young age, I 
remember constantly questioning 
why I was always the one asked to 
clean the kitchen or vacuum the 
house, while my brother was never 
bothered with such requests. I 
quickly realized the inequality I 
faced within my own home, even 
with something as simple as chores. 
This disparity both upset and 
interested me. What was the origin 
of these inherent stereotypes, 
and was women’s oppression in 
media an effect or cause of the 
continuation of this sexist nature?
According to feminist theorists, 
Western thought has been built 
upon the systematic and social 
repression of women. The attention 
on the portrayal of women in 
advertisements stems from the rise 
of feminist movements and the 
changing roles and perceptions of 
women in society. Specifically, the 
women’s movements in the 1960s 
propelled this conversation, with 
calls for equal opportunity and 
representation for women in society 
– touching on politics, sexuality, 
work and domestic life. Despite 
the social advancement evident in 
women from this time frame, the 
mainstream media lagged behind, 
continuing 
a 
hypersexualized 

and misogynistic presentation of 
women. However, there currently 
seems to be a shift from the old 
female representation paradigm in 
advertisements toward a new one. 
This shift is even being enforced in 
countries like the United Kingdom, 
which recently passed a legal ban 
on “harmful” gender stereotypes in 
advertisements.
I 
often 
question 
whether 
advertisers have a responsibility 
to consider gender norms and 
the potential harm they inflict on 
women. Typically, the “standard” 
or “old” paradigm of advertising 
promoted the representation of 
women as submissive, weak or 
in a constant state of requiring 
modification. 
This 
perception 
of 
women 
has 
influenced 
advertisements since the 1950s, 
even in those that seemed to be 
“liberating.” 
The 
shift 
toward 

a new paradigm, as discussed 
by attorney John Alan Cohan, 
is 
one 
that 
redefines 
female 
beauty to be natural, diverse 
and all-encompassing instead of 
unattainable. 
While 
advertising 
itself is not ethically wrong or right, 
the context in which it is used 
can often be harmful through the 
promotion of negative gender and 
racial stereotypes. 
The 
shift 
toward 
a 
new 
standard of advertising reveals 
itself through historically sexist 
brands, like Axe, changing their 
marketing techniques in order to 
reflect societal change. The brand 
Axe notoriously released sexist 
advertisements for around 15 years, 
perpetuating gender stereotypes 
for both men and women. The main 
plot in each of these advertisements 
emphasized the Axe Effect, which 
is the idea that girls will flock to 
guys who use Axe. The structure 
of these advertisement featured 
the characterization of women 
as prominent sex objects and 
promoted unrealistic expectations 
for men. However, Axe’s “Find Your 
Magic” campaign, “Is It Ok For 
Guys?” campaign and the recent 
“Bathsculinity” campaign exhibit 
a new approach to advertising that 

discards its stereotypical storyline 
and characterization of genders. 
Now, sex is not the focus of the 
ad and individuality is praised. 
These reject “must-have, must-be” 
fashion norms or body standards 
and embrace unique and distinct 
traits that make up individuals. 
With the rise of social media, the 
questioning of and rebellion against 
societal and gender norms has 
become a major point in feminist 
movements. Body positivity and 
acceptance of all different types of 
people is an important trend and 
marketing strategy for not only Axe, 
but companies ranging from Dove 
to Gillette to Audi. Advertisements 
have a unique position in which 
they can be viewed as a cultural lens, 
revealing what producers perceive 
to be important to the culture at 
that time, because they believe it 
will result in increased sales for 
their company. While companies 
like Axe show the progression of 
society and a shift toward a new 
standard of advertising, there are 
still polarizing reactions to these 
advertisements. This was seen 
in responses to the 2019 Gillette 
“We Believe: The Best Men Can 
Be” commercial which discussed 
holding 
men 
accountable 
for 
issues such as bullying and sexual 
assault. While this advertisement 
is a cultural lens into the ongoing 
conversation 
regarding 
sexual 
misconduct and movements such 
as #MeToo, it is also a means for 
cultural progression. On Twitter, 
Piers Morgan responded “I’ve 
used @Gillette razors my entire 
adult life but this absurd virtue-
signaling PC guff may drive me 
away to a company less eager to 
fuel the current pathetic global 
assault on masculinity. Let boys be 
damn boys. Let men be damn men.” 
While many supported the positive 
message Gillette was sending, 
negative reactions like Morgan’s 
reveal the remaining hold on male 
privilege and stereotypical gender 
norms for many. 
When viewing Axe’s shift in 
marketing strategy, advertisers may 
find it more appropriate with our 
social climate to shift toward more 
inclusive marketing techniques. 
While this change is often slow, the 
number of recent advertisements 
that portray positive and non-
binding gender norms are growing, 
pushing advertisers that previously 
disregarded the effects of gender 
norms toward a socially acceptable, 
marketable and healthy way of 
advertising that we should all strive 
to support.

Camilla Munaco can be reached at 

cmunaco@umich.edu.

There currently 
seems to be 
a shift in the 
old female 
representation 
paradigm.

S

uper Bowl ads. People 
love them, and they’re a 
huge spectacle. I know a 
couple people who solely tune 
in for the ads, not caring for the 
game but fascinated with the 
corporate creativity on display. 
I’ll admit, I’m not a huge fan of 
sporting events, but all the buzz 
surrounding the Super Bowl 
makes it nearly impossible to stay 
uninformed. I was unamused by 
most of the commercials, but one 
in particular really ticked me 
off. The commercial in question? 
The Planters commercial, where 
they revealed their new mascot, 
“Baby Nut,” after their longtime 
mascot Mr. Peanut supposedly 
died. Killing off Mr. Peanut 
was a shameless move that 
embodies everything insidious 
and pathetic about corporate 
marketing. Planter’s first post 
on Instagram about the new 
mascot was literally a plug for 
merchandise, hinting at their 
intentions of monetizing before 
the day was over. 
The move by Planters was 
obviously inspired by all of the 
theatrics 
surrounding 
Baby 
Yoda, the 50-year-old infant from 
Disney’s 
“The 
Mandalorian.” 
Baby Yoda is suspiciously similar 
to a character in Disney’s other 
purchased franchise, Marvel’s 
Baby Groot. The Verge wrote an 
article summing up the various 
trends this decade that have been 
related to babies, showing the 
infantilization fever. Executives 
at Planters wanted to cash in 
on that trend, and they have no 
qualms letting the world know. 
It’s uninspired and insulting that 
they think people are going to 
tolerate this drivel. But contrary 
to my assumptions, the Internet 
ate it up with a surprising fervor.
Some of the Super Bowl ads 
are avant-garde and break the 
mold, but others just play upon 
empathy to get you thinking 

about 
their 
product. 
An 
example of this would be this 
year’s Budweiser commercial. 
The 
commercial 
plays 
on 
the 
stereotypical 
“typical 
American,” showing scenes of 
heroism 
and 
heartwarming 
reunions. A deployed soldier 
reuniting with his father. A 
firefighter putting out a fire in 
California. Sure, none of those 
images are inherently bad. But 
what do they have to do with 
Budweiser? They call themselves 
a “typical American” beer, as if 
those exceptional moments are 
uniquely tied to Budweiser’s 
product. It doesn’t change the 
low quality of the product they 
sell. Just like Baby Nut, it’s 
shameless and manipulative.
One commercial that’s even 
more insulting is Walmart’s, 
which 
attempts 
to 
evoke 
empathy. 
“We 
see 
united 
towns,” 
they 
say. 
They’re 
a champion for small town 
America, and they love all the 
communities there. Walmart 
loves you! Except they don’t. 
It’s widely known that Walmart 
destroys 
local 
businesses, 
taking jobs down with them and 
causing even more destruction 
if they ever decide to leave. Such 
was the case for Edna, Texas. 
After a Walmart opened up in 
1982, they replaced the need for 
local retailers and pharmacists. 
Out of nowhere, just last year, 
the store closed. It left people 
scrambling for places to get 
the goods needed. This isn’t an 
isolated case, either. In 2018, 
Walmart closed 63 stores after 
they 
raised 
wages, 
leaving 
workers jobless. Many of their 
employees have a wage below 
the poverty line, which adds 
insult to injury. If anything, 
Walmart is an enemy of small 
towns and their livelihoods. 
The commercial is downright 
malicious in the way it tries to 

convince the American populace 
that they are anything but 
corporate hegemony. 
All of this is adjacent to how 
brands work on Twitter. Have 
you ever seen those tweets by a 
verified company that try to use 
a meme to get you to buy their 
product? Their tweets always 
make sure to be humorous, but 
tepid enough not to tarnish 
their brand name. The genesis 
of this trend seems to be the 
Wendy’s 
Twitter 
account, 
which 
in 
2017 
caught 
the 
social media network by storm 
when they began “roasting” 
people, insulting not only their 
competitors but individuals who 
dared question their hegemony. 
Plenty of compilations have been 
made about their “epic roasts,” 
essentially giving the company 
loads 
of 
free 
advertising. 
Personally, a corporation with 
such power and influence – more 
than I’ll ever realistically have 
in my life – punching down your 
average Twitter user rubs me the 
wrong way. Wendy’s has bigger 
problems to worry about, such as 
their violation of child labor laws.
This isn’t an issue many care 
about, but for me it’s hard to be 
complacent with the infiltration 
of focus-tested banal garbage 
that litters social media feeds. It’s 
downright insulting and I can’t 
even begin to imagine how many 
underpaid interns have been 
assigned to spitting the repugnant 
drivel that comes out of these 
accounts. Corporations are not 
people, and they’re certainly not 
a buddy you exchange relatable 
tweets with. They want your 
patronage, and will coax you into 
a Pavlovian relationship that 
can’t be reversed. Corporations 
are not your friend, and they 
never will be.

A guide to modern solar energy

“Baby Nut” and the perversion of the relatable tweet

SAM FOGEL | COLUMN

DESISLAVA DIKOVA | OP-ED

I

’ve never been to Missouri, 
but I’ve enjoyed many things 
from the state like Kansas City 
barbecue and the river. 
I assume Missouri, like 
the rest of the country, 
is filled with reasonably 
intelligent people. This 
is why I was flummoxed 
to learn that the state 
government in Missouri 
is regulating the use of 
the word “meat.” The 
legislation 
makes 
it 
illegal to call a product 
meat 
unless 
it 
was 
“derived from harvested 
production livestock or poultry.” 
Punishments for breaking the law 
will include a fine of up to $1,000 
and can bring a jail sentence of up to 
one year.
Proponents of the legislation 
claim using the term “meat” in 
reference to a product that does not 
come from an animal will confuse 
customers. But this is absurd 
— 
when a consumer buys plant-based 
meat that is labeled as such, it doesn’t 
strike me as particularly outlandish 
to assume they know what they are 
buying. Indeed, the company that 
produces Tofurky brought a lawsuit 
to this effect and litigation was still 
ongoing as of October 2019. Tofurky 
argued against it primarily on First 
Amendment grounds, but also that 
it didn’t mislead consumers. Both 
of these are justified points. Meat is 
more than what comes from poultry 
— as the complaint says, meat has 
been used to refer to the flesh in fruit 
and nuts. In addition, if someone 
buys something labeled “plant-
based meat” and are surprised by 

the lack of dead animal flesh, no 
legislation can help them. At that 
point, neither can God. 
Missouri is not 
alone in this kind 
of 
bad 
behavior 
with meat labeling. 
Arkansas passed a 
version of this bill 
that 
restricts 
the 
use of terms like 
“burger” and “pork” 
and 
others 
that 
have “been used or 
defined historically in 
reference to a specific 
agricultural product.” 
Thankfully, this bill was stopped 
by a federal judge who decided to 
grant a preliminary injunction. 
Again, it was Tofurky who sued, 
and although it worked out, costly 
litigation is not the answer to this 
kind of behavior.
Part of the problem is that this 
practice is not limited to the state 
level and is also not isolated to meat. 
During his time in office, then-
FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, 
M.D., 
pushed 
to 
“modernize” 
dairy standards. This included a 
call to standardize definitions of 
words like milk. One such reason 
for this was things like almond 
milk. Government workers were 
worried about people being misled 
that almond milk was akin to milk 
from a cow. This was such a worry 
that Dr. Gottlieb went so far as to 
clarify that “an almond doesn’t 
lactate.” The good doctor was 
absolutely correct — almonds don’t 
lactate. However, this seems like a 
weird way to delineate what is and 
what isn’t milk. Coconut milk, for 

example, is made by grating coconut 
— a practice which goes back 
hundreds of years. Because lactation 
isn’t involved, does this mean it’s not 
milk? Of course not. 
These policies are all written in the 
language of protecting consumers, 
but it’s worth remembering former 
President Ronald Reagan’s famous 
maxim: “The most terrifying words 
in the English language are: I’m 
from the government and I’m here 
to help.” None of these policies are 
actually about protection, because 
this isn’t something people need 
protection from. If you can be 
trusted to put your pants on in the 
morning without adult supervision, 
you don’t need the state or federal 
government telling you what you can 
and cannot call meat or milk. People 
and firms should not be allowed to 
request the government to attempt 
cheap protectionist scams for the 
sake of the cattle industry. That is 
exactly what these bills are doing 
and why they are being backed by 
big agriculture lobbying at every 
turn. Exactly like in this case, where 
the Missouri bill was backed by the 
Missouri Cattlemen’s Association.
The American public isn’t a 
bunch of morons. They don’t need 
their government to protect them 
from almond milk and tofu burgers. 
They do need their government to 
protect them from predatory firms 
and industry attempting to capture 
the entire regulatory structure. 
Unfortunately, if past policymaking 
is any indication, they won’t get 
that.

ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN

Consumers aren’t “meatheads”

Anik Joshi can be reached at 

anikj@umich.edu.

Sam Fogel can be reached at 

samfogel@umich.edu.

ANIK
JOSHI

