2018 (427)
2020 (127)
2022 (141)
2024 (99)
川普和馬斯克相互翻臉，總統和第一玩伴間的關係徹底撕裂，這已經人盡皆知不用多說了，媒體自然是虎狼撲食般撲向這個事件，連篇累牘不斷開發話題，更遑論主流媒體的進步派代表- 紐約時報， 這家親民主黨的大媒體向來以政治正確著稱，旗幟鮮明提倡平等，包容，多元，反對歧視和偏見，並儼然是這些方麵的語言楷模。
然而人，即使正人君子，過度興奮了會失言甚至失態，露出些平時正兒八經掩蓋的小馬腳小思想，令人莞爾，噢，揭開頭蓋，原來你也不過如此。紐約時報的記者和編輯們，這次也犯了這個錯，嗬嗬。見下圖，他們6月6日在其中文網發了篇由Shawn McCreesh撰寫的報道，中文標題是 【“姑娘們打起來了”：特郎普與馬斯克公開決裂】。
即使偶這個不求甚進的中間派，一讀標題也立馬嗅出了一點不那麽對頭的異味 - 性別偏見和歧視。咱難得踏上一個俯視紐時的製高點，不如就有樣學樣給它上綱上線一番。
這個標題無疑傳遞了一種性別刻板印象，認為女性之間的爭吵是瑣碎、感性、不理性的，把兩個男性的嚴重政治或商業衝突比作“姑娘們打起來了”，不僅扭曲事件的嚴重性，同時貶低了女性的行為模式。
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。
------
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their disagreement is catty, emotional, or undignified, and uses female behavior as the punchline, reinforcing the outdated notion that women’s arguments are trivial or melodramatic.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.
天有一言聽在你，選邊容易審視難。
好像也簡單，總桶幹啥都是對的，捧，沒商量。