ENG124 Watchmen Chapters I & III Critical Approach Evidence Assignment Now that you have read Chapters I-III of Watchmen, it’s time to take a deep dive by

ENG124 Watchmen Chapters I & III Critical Approach Evidence Assignment Now that you have read Chapters I-III of Watchmen, it’s time to take a deep dive by referring back to the ideas you read about in the five critical articles: gender, Marxist, psychological, historical, and eco-critical. Below is a chart that you will fill out. In this chart, you will make a claim about the story thus far and use evidence from the text to support this claim. Ultimately, this is a great practice for your upcoming and final out-of-class essay. The more effort you put into this assignment, the more likely you will be able to use the information from it for that essay. Below there is a student sample version to help you understand what you are supposed to be doing. However, please use this sample as an aid, and do not attempt to merely copy the information in your own words, or you will receive a zero on this assignment. You may also want to review the Critical Approaches to Literature handout to remind yourself what each one tries to accomplish.

Ok 1st. The Brain Matters is the article that you have to read to now what you should put in the claim.

2nd. there is a video that teacher explain every thing hope you watch it too

3rd. you have to take your examples from the Watch man book.

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ke_jAAAAQB…

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ke_jAAAAQB…

https://cccconfer.zoom.us/recording/share/XQACJutF… (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Watchmen Critical Approach Practice Layer #1:
Using Evidence from the Primary Source
Chapters I-III
This is a student sample taking a gender approach.
Claim (It should be clear which critical approach you are taking.)
Throughout the graphic novel, female characters are marginalized through their
treatment by the male characters.
Evidence—1 (Include both chapter and page numbers for each example).
For example, in Chapter 1, on page 33, panel 3, Laurie is having dinner with Dan
and reveals, “It’s just that the only reason I’m kept around is to keep Jon relaxed
and happy.”
Explanation—1 (How does your evidence support your claim?)
This scene demonstrates that Laurie is frustrated with her romantic relationship
with Jon because she is treated as an object for his pleasure. Jon has an
important job with the government, and Laurie feels that she is simply a
helpmate to him.
Evidence—2 (Include both chapter and page numbers for each example).
Another example of how women are marginalized is in Chapter 2 on pages 4750 when Sally Jupiter is violently attacked by The Comedian, who tries to rape
her; however, Hooded Justice intervenes.
Explanation—2 (How does your evidence support your claim?)
Sally Jupiter is not only attacked by The Comedian, but she is also blamed for
the attack when The Comedian implies that she welcomed the attention.
Furthermore, even though Hooded Justice intervenes, he also partakes in victimblaming when admonishing her on page 50: “And for God’s sake, cover
yourself.”
Evidence—3 (Include both chapter and page numbers for each example).
A third example of female characters being marginalized comes in Chapter 3 and
regards Jon’s treatment of Laurie and a past girlfriend. On page 81, Laurie gets
angry with Jon when she realizes he is “multi-tasking” while making love to her.
While this scene is taking place, the reader also bears witness to an interview
where Janey Slater, Jon’s former girlfriend, admits, “Within three years, he’d
dumped me for some sixteen-year-old who ran around in her underwear” (82).
Explanation—3 (How does your evidence support your claim?)
It is worth noting that Laurie has consistently revealed her disappointment at how
she is objectified by Jon. When Janey admits that Jon left her for a teenaged
Laurie, this furthers the idea that Jon objectifies women, replacing them when
they get too “old.” Perhaps Laurie feels that she is now reaching her “expiration
date” with him.
Significance (Why is any of this interesting or important overall?)
Overall, these examples demonstrate that women are often treated as objects or
dehumanized by men since their main self-worth seems to be wrapped up in
their ability to please men sexually and remain youthful and beautiful in their
appearances, which incidentally and ironically, is also what is used to blame
them when they are targets of violence by men.
Watchmen Chapters I-III
Critical Approach Practice Layer #1:
Using Evidence from the Primary Source
Directions: Choose one of the five critical approaches (eco-critical, psychological,
Marxist, gender, or historical), and come up with a specific claim about Watchmen.
Then, support that claim with evidence from the graphic novel. Try to come up
with one example from each chapter, if possible.
Claim (It should be clear which critical approach you are taking.)
Evidence—1 (Include both chapter and page numbers for each example).
Explanation—1 (How does your evidence support your claim?)
Evidence—2 (Include both chapter and page numbers for each example).
Explanation—2 (How does your evidence support your claim?)
Evidence—3 (Include both chapter and page numbers for each example).
Explanation—3 (How does your evidence support your claim?)
Significance (Why is any of this interesting or important overall?)
Cabrera et al. Environmental Health (2016) 15:20
DOI 10.1186/s12940-016-0114-3
COMMENTARY
Open Access
Brain matters: from environmental ethics to
environmental neuroethics
Laura Y. Cabrera1,2*, Jordan Tesluk1,3, Michelle Chakraborti1, Ralph Matthews3 and Judy Illes1
Abstract
The ways in which humans affect and are affected by their environments have been studied from many different
perspectives over the past decades. However, it was not until the 1970s that the discussion of the ethical relationship
between humankind and the environment formalized as an academic discipline with the emergence of environmental
ethics. A few decades later, environmental health emerged as a discipline focused on the assessment and regulation of
environmental factors that affect living beings. Our goal here is to begin a discussion specifically about the impact of
modern environmental change on biomedical and social understandings of brain and mental health, and to align this
with ethical considerations. We refer to this focus as Environmental Neuroethics, offer a case study to illustrate key
themes and issues, and conclude by offering a five-tier framework as a starting point of analysis.
Keywords: Brain health, Mental health, Environment, Ethics, Social implications
Background: At the crossroads of environment,
brain and mental health
Humans have altered their environments in pursuit of
self-improvement and better opportunities since ancient
times, but the scope and impact of these changes are unprecedented today [1]. Technological advancements have
yielded positive economic growth, improved standards
of living, and provided new ways of protecting human
health. At the same time, technology has contributed to
widespread negative changes in the environment that include global climate change, deforestation, suburban
sprawl, ecosystem loss, and increased health risks from
exposure to radiation, toxicants, and stress.
While there are different views among scholars of environmental ethics about why humans should value the environment [2], a common position focuses on direct and
potential consequences to human health and well-being
[3]. Environmental health experts similarly focus on environmental changes in terms of their impact on human
health. However, within approaches to environmental
* Correspondence: Laura.cabrera@singularityu.org
1
National Core for Neuroethics, Division of Neurology, Department of
Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Koerner S124,
Vancouver, V6T 2B5 B.C., Canada
2
Center for Ethics & Humanities in the Life Sciences, Department of
Translational Science and Molecular Medicine, Michigan State University, East
Fee Hall, 965 Fee Road, Rm C211, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
ethics and environmental health, less attention has been
paid to the specific ethical, social and legal implications of
these changes for brain and mental health.1 To do so, requires that we probe the intersection of diverse biological,
social and cultural contexts of human well-being.
Brain and mental health are determined by complex interactions between individual predispositions and behavior, social and economic processes, and the environment
[4, 5]. Classic examples pointing to an association between
neurological function and environmental changes include
neurological deficits from exposure to mercury [6] and
lead [7–9], various forms of air [10–14] and water pollution [15], pesticides, and solvents [16–20]. Moreover,
cross-cultural studies of indigenous worldviews on identity, concepts of the self, and wellness have highlighted the
direct and intimate connections between individuals and
their environments [21, 22]. These studies remind us not
only about cross-cultural differences involved in experiencing brain health and the environment, but also about
different layers of vulnerability [23] brought forward by
the impact of environmental change. Children [24], the
elderly [25], workers who may be exposed occupationally
to neurotoxicants [20] and people who live in the proximity of neurotoxicant sources [26] are more vulnerable than
other sectors of the population. These unequal levels of
exposure interacting with brain stage in development or
decline, and differential effects from environmental risks
© 2016 Cabrera et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Cabrera et al. Environmental Health (2016) 15:20
are at the core of the environmental justice movement
and, in regard to brain and mental health outcomes, are a
central concern of Environmental Neuroethics.
Our goal here is to begin a discussion specifically
about the impact of modern environmental change on
biomedical and social understandings of brain and mental health, and to align this with ethical considerations.
There are several reasons for thinking that this approach
is timely. To start, brain and mental health disorders,
many of which have important environmental factors,
are leading contributors to disabilities and morbidity
that produce critical public health, societal and economic impacts [27]. In addition, brain development, as
well as its optimal function throughout the life of individuals, is particularly susceptible to the environment to
which a person is exposed [24]. Considering the vulnerability of brains towards environmental exposures that
are not easy to identify or to eliminate [24], we can see
why brain and mental health are matters of global concern and social justice and, in particular, as the health
risks related to environmental exposures are often distributed unequally. Thus, it becomes crucial to mitigate
the negative impacts of environmental change while ensuring fair distribution of the positive ones. This balance
represents a key aspect of the Environmental Neuroethics approach we present here.
Fracking as a case study
Fuel sources with low greenhouse gas emissions are frequently advanced as a replacement to the rapid expansion
in fossil fuel usage [28]. Technological advancements such
as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) have now made extraction
of these gas reserves profitable. The fracking process can
impact the environment in various ways through the extraction and discharge of massive quantities of contaminated water, injection of various chemicals into the ground,
and the disruption of the landscape with high densities of
Page 2 of 5
roads and well-heads that encroach on human settlements
and wild habitats [29]. Like other literature on environmental change, contamination of the air and water supplies in
the vicinity of fracking operations [17, 30] has been linked
to health impacts that include asthma, respiratory complaints, gastro-intestinal effects and nosebleeds [31, 32].
Such contamination is also related to negative neurological
effects. For example, McKenzie and colleagues [26] carried
out a retrospective cohort study of 124,842 births between
1996 and 2009 in rural Colorado examining the associations between maternal proximity to fracking sites and
birth outcomes. They found that births to mothers residing
close to or surrounded by wells (>125 wells/mile) were
twice as likely to have a neural tube defects compared to
those with no wells within a 10-mile radius (OR = 2.0; 95 %
CI: 1.0, 3.9, based on 59 cases).
With these types of foundational studies in mind, we examined the prevalence in the literature of associations
made between fracking and neurological or mental health
impacts. To this end, we carried out an extensive search of
peer-reviewed and gray literature of articles, theses, books,
abstracts, and government reports on unconventional gas
development (UGD), environment, brain and mental health
using Google Scholar, the most comprehensive database
relevant to the goals of the study. The searches were based
on two primary key terms: (1) unconventional gas development, and (2) brain; key UGD search terms: {unconventional natural gas (+/−) development}, {shale gas (+/−)
development}, {fracking} and {hydraulic fracturing}; and,
key brain search terms were {brain}, {neuro}, {neurological}
and {mental}. We also used a range of secondary search
terms to ensure that searches identify studies relevant to
culture, First Nations, health, ethics, and solastalgia.2 Of the
one hundred and six articles identified, 83 articles originated from the peer-reviewed literature (reviews,
N = 57; primary research N = 26) and 23 from the gray literature, dating back to 2009 (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 Number of articles on fracking and brain by year (*up to September 2014)
Cabrera et al. Environmental Health (2016) 15:20
To provide context, we explored the origin of the
cases in our sample for country of corresponding author
and corresponding author disciplines. Most returns originated from the United States (USA) (N = 83). Twelve
papers originated from Australia and six from Canada.
One paper meeting our inclusion criteria originated each
from China, Germany, New Zealand, Switzerland and
United Kingdom. Based on the corresponding authors’
affiliation, we found that the majority of corresponding
authors held multiple disciplinary associations (N = 45).
Twenty-two held affiliations in the health sciences (e.g.,
medicine), 21 in the social sciences (e.g., sociology, law),
11 were associated with environmental sciences, such as
ecology or forestry, and seven have disciplines represented only in a limited basis such as engineering or regional planning.
To explore the texts in depth, we conducted a
three-part content analysis [33, 34] of the full set of
cases. Each individual article was used as the unit of
analysis. In the first phase of the analysis, we found
that the dominant themes relate to public health
(N = 31), and regulation and policy (N = 22). Five articles mention UGD and fracking broadly as a threat to
Indigenous health.
In a second phase, we focused on brain and mental
health. Eight of the 106 papers contain elaborate detailed
examination of the impact that UGD poses for brain and
mental health, arguments for associations between brain
and mental health related to UGD, or both. The remaining
papers only explore the relationship between fracking
chemicals and neurotoxicity superficially and provide little
if any mention of ethical implications.
In the third phase, we focused specifically on content
related to ethics. Two papers provide substantial ethical
discussion. One paper argues that environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing poses “a new threat
to human rights” [35]. The other, written by members of
the present author group, makes a call to the Presidential Commission for the integration of ethical considerations and neuroscience into the study of environmental
change [36]. Sixty-five papers mention safety and issues
related to the duty not to inflict harm; 41 papers mention at least one other ethical concern such as trust, vulnerability, justice, and disempowerment but without any
further elaboration on the matter. Overall, the findings
reveal that while there is emphasis on health, there is
limited ethical discussion of brain and mental health
impacts.
Environmental Neuroethics in the wild
Environmental Neuroethics can provide a framework to
investigate the ethical and social implications of environmental change on brain and mental health. Building on
previous work [37], we propose a five-tier framework:
Page 3 of 5
1. Brain science and the environment: Neuroscience
discovery that is aligned with the measurement and
evaluation of factors that affect the way individuals,
communities and society adapt and cope with real
or perceived environmental threats to well-being.
2. The relational self and the environment: The
interface between the environment and brain and
mental health, and the mechanisms by which
exposures at key points in life may mediate different
brain and mental effects; relationships among
mental health stressors, susceptibility to mental
health issues, and resilience within the context of
changing environments.
3. Cross-cultural factors and the environment:
Exploration of the role of culture in the relationship
between environment and brain and mental health;
interactions between Traditional Ecological
Knowledge and neuroscience evidence; the impact of
environmental change and varying effects on First
Nations and settler communities given respective
relationships between culture and the environment.
4. Social policy and the environment: Priorities and
allocation of resources of local social organizations
to deal with environmental impacts on brain and
mental health.
5. Public discourse and the environment: The
engagement of professional disciplines and
communities in multidirectional communication
and discourse about neurological, psychological,
sociological and ethical dimensions of
environmental change; facilitation of international,
cross-disciplinary, transdisciplinary collaborations;
creation of effective outreach programs that
promote public understanding about the impact of
environmental change on brain and mental health.
This framework can be extended more broadly to
other environmental impacts such as the extraction of
natural resources, air pollution, use of agricultural chemicals, water contamination, proximity to noxious facilities, mining waste and nuclear plants, ocean
degradation, food contamination, and habitat destruction. Moreover, while the focus here has been on
changes to the physical environment, Environmental
Neuroethics is also concerned with other environments
such as digital and social environments, and how these
impact neurological health.
Notwithstanding the opportunity to expand ethical and
social discussion around environmental change, priority
setting and paths to action are not without challenges. Reliability and stability of evidence [38], knowledge of impacts [39], and appreciation of risk [40–42] are perceived
and weighted differently by different stakeholders and are
among the key obstacles.
Cabrera et al. Environmental Health (2016) 15:20
Conclusions
The identified gaps in the ethical discussion related to
environmental change and health as well as the vulnerability of brains, suggest that it is time for an Environmental Neuroethics dedicated to address the interaction
of biomedical and social understandings of anthropogenic environmental change. In moving forward, results
and resulting scholarship and guidance must be specific,
solution-oriented, and proportionate to the benefits and
risks in play.
Page 4 of 5
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Endnotes
1
We use the term mental health to include “wellbeing, everyday problems in living associated with bodily
symptoms of stress and anxiety, mild depression, and
seasonal fluctuations in mood and energy, as well as
more severe psychiatric disorders, such as major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychotic
disorders” [21 xiv].
2
A term used to refer to distress cause by environmental change.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
18.
Authors’ contributions
LC participated in the design of the study, carried out analysis of data and
drafted the manuscript. MC gathered the data and helped with the analysis.
JT, RM participated in the design of the study and interpretation of data. JI
conceived the study, participated in its design and coordination, and helped
to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
19.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the support of CIHR (MO…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment