2018 (427)
2020 (127)
2022 (141)
2024 (99)
川普和马斯克相互翻脸，总统和第一玩伴间的关系彻底撕裂，这已经人尽皆知不用多说了，媒体自然是虎狼扑食般扑向这个事件，连篇累牍不断开发话题，更遑论主流媒体的进步派代表- 纽约时报， 这家亲民主党的大媒体向来以政治正确著称，旗帜鲜明提倡平等，包容，多元，反对歧视和偏见，并俨然是这些方面的语言楷模。
然而人，即使正人君子，过度兴奋了会失言甚至失态，露出些平时正儿八经掩盖的小马脚小思想，令人莞尔，噢，揭开头盖，原来你也不过如此。纽约时报的记者和编辑们，这次也犯了这个错，呵呵。见下图，他们6月6日在其中文网发了篇由Shawn McCreesh撰写的报道，中文标题是 【“姑娘们打起来了”：特郎普与马斯克公开决裂】。
即使偶这个不求甚进的中间派，一读标题也立马嗅出了一点不那么对头的异味 - 性别偏见和歧视。咱难得踏上一个俯视纽时的制高点，不如就有样学样给它上纲上线一番。
这个标题无疑传递了一种性别刻板印象，认为女性之间的争吵是琐碎、感性、不理性的，把两个男性的严重政治或商业冲突比作“姑娘们打起来了”，不仅扭曲事件的严重性，同时贬低了女性的行为模式。
没错，“姑娘们打起来了”( The girls are fighting)不是该文作者的原创语言，而是是引用了社媒上的一个评论，但作者从上千评论中单单挑出这么一句来吸引眼球，不也反映出作者自己与其一拍即合的潜意识和思想格调？你对川普和马斯克的闹瓣加以冷嘲热讽没问题，但把女性作为讥笑的类比载体，直接贬低了女性和她们的情绪表达，实在是十分出格的，这样的厌女和女性歧视话语在今天的政府部门和大公司恐怕都没人敢放在台面上，更是有违主流媒体(不管保守还是进步）约定俗成的行为规范，你一家以平权和反歧视著称的大媒体竟会在几十万读者面前如此公然丧失底线而不自知？
问题还没完。这篇报道的中文标题居然和英文标题截然不同，英文标题是【Trump and Musk's relationship melts down in spectacular fashion】， 没有girls fighting字眼和任何女性类比的意思。看作者名字，该文原稿肯定是英文，偶不禁要问：你纽时将其翻译成中文时，为何要在标题故意加入女性歧视的话语？这显然不是机器翻译，而是人为。你纽时难道还有根深蒂固的种族偏见？你肯定清楚girls fighting 这样贬低女性的话语是不能见容于英文公共语境的，但却在中文公共语境里肆无忌惮地使用，把中英这两个标题并列放置，这不是赤裸裸的种族歧视又是什么呢？
一家道貌岸然的媒体，过度兴奋时，露出了自己在性别和种族歧视上的藏污纳垢。
------
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 “姑娘们打起来了” ("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their disagreement is catty, emotional, or undignified, and uses female behavior as the punchline, reinforcing the outdated notion that women’s arguments are trivial or melodramatic.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.
天有一言听在你，选边容易审视难。
好像也简单，总桶干啥都是对的，捧，没商量。