沒錯，“姑娘們打起來了”( The girls are fighting)不是該文作者的原創語言，而是是引用了社媒上的一個評論，但作者從上千評論中單單挑出這麽一句來吸引眼球，不也反映出作者自己與其一拍即合的潛意識和思想格調？你對川普和馬斯克的鬧瓣加以冷嘲熱諷沒問題，但把女性作為譏笑的類比載體，直接貶低了女性和她們的情緒表達，實在是十分出格的，這樣的厭女和女性歧視話語在今天的政府部門和大公司恐怕都沒人敢放在台麵上，更是有違主流媒體(不管保守還是進步）約定俗成的行為規範，你一家以平權和反歧視著稱的大媒體竟會在幾十萬讀者麵前如此公然喪失底線而不自知？
問題還沒完。這篇報道的中文標題居然和英文標題截然不同，英文標題是【Trump and Musk's relationship melts down in spectacular fashion】， 沒有girls fighting字眼和任何女性類比的意思。看作者名字，該文原稿肯定是英文，偶不禁要問：你紐時將其翻譯成中文時，為何要在標題故意加入女性歧視的話語？這顯然不是機器翻譯，而是人為。你紐時難道還有根深蒂固的種族偏見？你肯定清楚girls fighting 這樣貶低女性的話語是不能見容於英文公共語境的，但卻在中文公共語境裏肆無忌憚地使用，把中英這兩個標題並列放置，這不是赤裸裸的種族歧視又是什麽呢？
一家道貌岸然的媒體，過度興奮時，露出了自己在性別和種族歧視上的藏汙納垢。
老鍵 發表評論於
鑒於此貼在走廊的爭論，我問了下ChatGPT：The New York Times recently published an article reporting on the latest fight between Musk and Trump, titled " Trump and Musk's relationship melts down in spectacular fashion ". However, the title of this article's simplified Chinese translation version, as seen on NYT's Chinese Web pages, became a very different one 【“姑娘們打起來了”：特郎普與馬斯克公開決裂】。Do you think this has any problem? I am not referring to linguistic accuracy.
------
ChatGPT回答: Yes, there is a potential problem with that Chinese title — not in terms of linguistic accuracy, but in terms of tone, cultural sensitivity, and gender implications.
Why It Might Be Problematic:
1. Sexist Undertones
The phrase “姑娘們打起來了” ("The girls are fighting") is often used sarcastically to describe emotional or petty squabbles, traditionally among women. Applying it to two men — especially public figures like Trump and Musk — weaponizes gender stereotypes for humor. It implies their disagreement is catty, emotional, or undignified, and uses female behavior as the punchline, reinforcing the outdated notion that women’s arguments are trivial or melodramatic.
2. Gender-based Derision
This framing essentially mocks Trump and Musk by feminizing their behavior, which leans into misogynistic tropes: that being “like a woman” is inherently laughable or demeaning. The title plays on the cultural assumption that men being emotional or combative in a non-rational way is emasculating — and then uses that to entertain.
3. Tone Shift from the Original
The English headline, “Trump and Musk’s relationship melts down in spectacular fashion”, is dramatic but neutral in tone. The Chinese title, however, adds a layer of mockery and subjective judgment. It injects a gossipy flavor that the original avoids. This shift could be considered unprofessional, or at least editorially inconsistent with the NYT’s typical journalistic voice.
Contextual Considerations:
In Chinese internet culture, that phrase is widely used in a meme-like or tongue-in-cheek manner — especially on platforms like Weibo or Zhihu. So the translator might have intended it as clickbait or humor, assuming a casual tone would attract readers.
Still, since it's The New York Times, a respected global publication, people expect a certain editorial standard — including respectful and neutral phrasing, particularly around identity and gender.
In Summary:
Yes, the title is potentially politically incorrect and gender-disrespectful, not just due to content but also tone and implication. It trivializes serious political tensions by framing them through sexist humor, which risks offending readers — particularly those sensitive to gender equity and media ethics.
沒錯，“姑娘們打起來了”( The girls are fighting)不是該文作者的原創語言，而是是引用了社媒上的一個評論，但作者從上千評論中單單挑出這麽一句來吸引眼球，不也反映出作者自己與其一拍即合的潛意識和思想格調？你對川普和馬斯克的鬧瓣加以冷嘲熱諷沒問題，但把女性作為譏笑的類比載體，直接貶低了女性和她們的情緒表達，實在是十分出格的，這樣的厭女和女性歧視話語在今天的政府部門和大公司恐怕都沒人敢放在台麵上，更是有違主流媒體(不管保守還是進步）約定俗成的行為規範，你一家以平權和反歧視著稱的大媒體竟會在幾十萬讀者麵前如此公然喪失底線而不自知？
問題還沒完。這篇報道的中文標題居然和英文標題截然不同，英文標題是【Trump and Musk's relationship melts down in spectacular fashion】， 沒有girls fighting字眼和任何女性類比的意思。看作者名字，該文原稿肯定是英文，偶不禁要問：你紐時將其翻譯成中文時，為何要在標題故意加入女性歧視的話語？這顯然不是機器翻譯，而是人為。你紐時難道還有根深蒂固的種族偏見？你肯定清楚girls fighting 這樣貶低女性的話語是不能見容於英文公共語境的，但卻在中文公共語境裏肆無忌憚地使用，把中英這兩個標題並列放置，這不是赤裸裸的種族歧視又是什麽呢？
