Social media sites, according to Rentschler (2014) can become both "aggregators of online misogyny" as well as key spaces for feminist education and activism. They are spaces where 'rape culture', in particular, is both performed and resisted, and where a feminist counterpublic can be formed (Salter 2013). In this New Zealand study, we interviewed 17 young people (16-23 years) who were critical of rape culture about their exposure and responses to it on social media and beyond. Participants described a 'matrix of sexism' in which elements of rape culture formed a taken-for-granted backdrop to their everyday lives.They readily discussed examples they had witnessed, including victim-blaming, 'slutshaming', rape jokes, the celebration of male sexual conquest, and demeaning sexualized representations of women. While participants described this material as distressing, they also described how online spaces offered inspiration, education and solidarity that legitimated their discomfort with rape culture. Social media provided safe spaces that served as a buffer against the negative effects of sexism, and allowed participation in a feminist counterpublic that directly contests rape culture.

No abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Purpose: Healthcare spending will account for 20% of US gross domestic product by 2028. One strategy to address rising costs is evaluating the utilization fraction (UF) of surgical trays. Utilization fraction averages between 13% and 27% among surgical specialties, yet data from plastic surgery are lacking. Methods: This prospective observational study assessed UF of surgical instruments in all reduction mammoplasty performed at 2 sites in the same healthcare system over a 6-month period. Site 1 is a tertiary hospital and site 2, an outpatient surgical center. Utilization fraction was calculated as percent fraction of used, or if operating surgeons touched them, to opened instruments. A new surgical tray was created by removing instruments not used in 20% of cases. Reprocessing costs and savings were calculated using published reprocessing figures of $0.10 to $0.51 per instrument. Descriptive statistics and parametric variables reported as mean ± standard deviation. Unpaired Student t test was performed to determine statistical significance of findings ( P < 0.05). Results: Four plastic surgeons performed 37 procedures, 11 at site 1 and 26 at site 2. At site 1, 112 instruments are opened in one tray with 53 unique and 59 duplicates. At site 2, 155 instruments are opened in 2 trays with 58 unique, 20 shared, and 77 duplicates. Instrument user did not vary by site ( P = 0.446), with 19 ± 3 instruments and 17 ± 3 instruments used per case; however, UF varied significantly ( P < 0.0001) with average UF of 16.6% ± 2.8% and 11.5% ± 1.7% at sites 1 and 2, respectively.

No abstract