評論
打印
After the ad aired, as Squarespace tried to promote the hashtag #5to9, a counterversion appeared: #9to5ShouldBeEnough.
廣告播出后，當Squarespace試圖推廣標簽“晚五朝九”時，出現了一個相反的版本：“朝九晚五就夠了”。
The ad clearly felt, to many of its viewers, like yet another glorification of an economy in which people must work more jobs, for ever longer hours, just to survive to the next paycheck -
對許多觀眾來說，這則廣告顯然是對經濟的又一次頌揚，在這種經濟中，人們必須工作更多，工作時間更長，才能活到發薪日——
often for gig-economy companies that classify them as "independent" contract laborers, instead of offering the sorts of protected, benefited, living-wage jobs for which the women of the original 9to5 group continue to fight.
通常對于那些將她們歸為“獨立”合同工的零工經濟來說，并沒有提供那種受保護的、有福利的、有生活保障的工作，而原來朝九晚五的女性繼續為之奮斗。
It didn't help that the gig-economy mainstays DoorDash and UberEats aired their own Super Bowl ads branding themselves as genial supporters of small businesses.
不過，零工經濟的主要支柱DoorDash和UberEats播出了他們自己的超級碗廣告，將自己標榜為小企業的友好支持者，卻無濟于事。
DoorDash used the "Sesame Street" song "People in Your Neighborhood"; UberEats resurrected the tongue-in-cheek anti-corporate message of "Wayne's World."
DoorDash使用了《芝麻街》的歌曲《你的鄰居》；UberEats重新恢復了“韋恩的世界”中的口是心非的反公司信息。
Both companies have taken in billions during the pandemic, skimming hefty fees off the struggling local restaurants whose food they deliver.
這兩家公司在新冠疫情期間都獲得了數十億美元的收入，為他們派送的當地餐館節省了巨額費用。
This was a poor message, AdWeek chided, at a time when "hustle culture feels downright toxic."
這是一個糟糕的信息，《廣告周刊》指責說，在“喧囂文化感覺徹頭徹尾有毒”的時候。
Inevitably, though, debate about the ad landed not on Squarespace, but on the shoulders of Parton herself.
不可避免的是，關于這則廣告的爭論不是落在Squarespace上，而是落在了帕頓自己的肩上。
Was she profiting off the fetishization of an exploitative economy, or was she just another hard-working American with her own side hustle?
她是從剝削經濟的拜物教中獲利，還是她只是另一個勤勞的美國人，有著自己的一面？
(There's an ad within the ad, for Parton's new fragrance line, which uses a Squarespace site).
（廣告中有一則廣告，是針對帕頓的新香水系列，它使用了Squarespace網站）。
A Washington Post headline referred to the ad as "Dolly Parton's betrayal," while one in Newsweek argued that the ad "Shows We Live in a Dystopia" - but only after cautiously averring that "Dolly Parton Is Awesome."
《華盛頓郵報》的一則頭條新聞稱這則廣告是“多莉·帕頓的背叛”，而《新聞周刊》的一篇則認為這則廣告“表明我們生活在一個反烏托邦中”——但這是在謹慎地宣稱“多莉·帕頓太棒了”之后發生的事情。
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
