A ngelina Jolie， in publicly airing the details of a surgery that forced her into early 1）menopause， is taking an activist approach to oversharing.

Let’s talk about menopause. Or let’s talk， at least， about Angelina Jolie. The actress， filmmaker， and advocate recently underwent surgery that removed her 2）ovaries and 3）fallopian tubes—and that， as a result， put her into forced menopause at the age of 39. Jolie wrote about the surgery， and its effects， in Tuesday’s New York Times. “I will not be able to have any more children，” she writes， “and I expect some physical changes. But I feel at ease with whatever will come， not because I am strong but because this is a part of life. It is nothing to be feared.”

That Jolie would undergo the surgery she did， given her genetic risk for ovarian and breast cancers—she lost her mother， her grandmother， and her aunt to the disease—is not in itself terribly noteworthy； it was a decision she made， she writes， after long consideration， and with input from medical professionals both “Eastern and Western.” What is noteworthy， though， is the fact that Jolie detailed the decision in the pages of the New York Times. Even in the age of U.S. Weekly and TMZ， celebrities’ personal health is still generally regarded as， you know， personal. And reproductive health even more so. What Jolie is making， by being public about her surgery， is a subtly political point： She’s breaking the barrier between reproductive health and health in general.

She’s also breaking a cultural barrier， though. In her essays—the one published today is the sequel to a piece Jolie wrote in 2013， detailing her decision to get a double mastectomy—Jolie has emphasized the fact that she still feels， despite and even because of the surgeries， fully feminine. “I do not feel any less of a woman，” she wrote in 2013. “I feel empowered that I made a strong choice that in no way diminishes my femininity.” Today’s essay echoes that sentiment： “I feel feminine，” she notes， “and grounded in the choices I am making for myself and my family.”

This is significant， and not just because Jolie’s openness is bringing normally taboo subjects into the public sphere. There’s also the fact that Hollywood has， particularly in its notoriously troublesome dealings with women， emphasized a divide between beauty and health. Or， more specifically， between health and “health.” The media-industrial complex， with its emphasis on images and consumerism， has treated beauty not just as evidence of well-being， but also as something that can be obtained at the expense of it. It has sold us， and particularly women， on beautifying solutions like Botox， tanning， and plastic surgery， with all its attendant dangers. It has emphasized， in other words， beauty—which doubles， often， as youth—over longevity.

The toxicity of all that， literally and otherwise， is obvious. The good news， though， is that as humans， we’re rapidly evolving away from it. It’s not that we’re becoming less superficial， or less interested in beauty and youth and the extension of both； it’s instead that the media is beginning to understand beauty as a 4）holistic proposition—something that is intimately connected to health. Sure， women can still buy their way to better looks， occasionally at the cost of their own longevity and quality of life. But what’s becoming apparent now as never before is that the best way to look healthy is to actually be that way. All those Cosmo articles detailing the best diets for glossy hair and glowing skin； all those Marie Claire pieces sharing destressing tips. The rise of yoga and meditation and “clean eating” and detoxing and quinoa. The popularity of organic foods. The fact that “green juice” is a thing.

It’s easy to make fun of this stuff， and of all the other things that tend to result when Peter Pan complexes meet conspicuous consumption. What they suggest， though， is an extremely 5）salutary thing： that beauty， in the end， is another thing that’s best when it’s organic.

Which is another way of saying that hotness is increasingly a holistic proposition. As is celebrity. U.S. Weekly and People magazine and TMZ have made a sport， if not an art， of emphasizing the human banalities of stars’ lives（“Celebrities： they’re just like us！”）. Social media have given celebrities even more platforms for sharing their relatable humanity. So have more traditional forms of commercial media. Beyonce has， on top of everything else， a line of yogawear and a vegan food delivery service. Gwyneth Paltrow is selling a life philosophy， along with recipes for 6）gluten-free lemon bars， on GOOP. So is Blake Lively， on Preserve. Even Kim Kardashian， who might yet prove to be a 7）mannequin come to life， is selling humanity—her lifestyle， her 8）catchphrases， her particular approaches to celebrity and beauty and capitalism—along with her image.

In that context， Jolie’s discussion of her decision to remove her reproductive organs is not terribly surprising. Celebrities have long used their fame for political advocacy， and Jolie herself has been， on top of everything else， a human rights advocate. （Her bio on her New York Times essay lists her as“a filmmaker and special envoy of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.”） The fact that Jolie is training her focus on her own health puts her in league with a long list of fellow stars who use their fame， and their personal experiences， to bring attention to health issues： Michael J. Fox and Parkinson’s. Katie Couric and colon cancer. Magic Johnson and HIV. Padma Lakshmi and endometriosis. Brooke Shields and postpartum depression. Maria Shriver and Alzheimer’s. Etc.

Jolie’s advocacy is especially powerful， though， because the issues she’s discussing—and the issues she is， more importantly， encouraging a discussion about—are intimately connected to cultural assumptions about youth and desirability. Jolie is oversharing， in a way， but it’s a productive form of oversharing—far removed from the 9）vapidities of the Kardashian selfie or the self-indulgences of Celebrity Instagram. Jolie， in talking about her surgery， is also emphasizing the 10）inextricable connection between inner health and outer beauty. “I feel feminine，” Jolie writes in today’s essay. That declaration is preceded， tellingly， by this one： “I will look for natural ways to strengthen my immune system.”

安吉麗娜·朱麗公開(kāi)了自己手術(shù)的細(xì)節(jié)，這個(gè)手術(shù)讓她提前進(jìn)入了更年期，她以一位活動(dòng)家的身份來(lái)大量公開(kāi)這些細(xì)節(jié)。

我們來(lái)聊聊更年期?；蛘咧辽倭牧陌布惸取ぶ禧?。這位女演員、導(dǎo)演、倡導(dǎo)者最近做了切除子宮和輸卵管的手術(shù)，這讓她39歲就進(jìn)入了人為性更年期。朱麗在周二的《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》上就這個(gè)手術(shù)及其結(jié)果寫(xiě)了一篇文章?！拔覍⒉荒茉偕『?，”她這樣寫(xiě)道，“我會(huì)面臨一些身體上的變化。但我對(duì)將要發(fā)生的事情感到坦然，不是因?yàn)槲液軋?jiān)強(qiáng)，而是因?yàn)檫@就是生活的一部分。沒(méi)什么要恐懼的。”

朱麗做手術(shù)這件事情本身無(wú)甚值得大驚小怪的，畢竟她有患卵巢癌和乳腺癌的遺傳風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，她的母親、外祖母和阿姨都因此病去世；她這樣寫(xiě)道，那是她自己做的決定，經(jīng)長(zhǎng)期考慮，并咨詢了“東西方”的專業(yè)醫(yī)生。而值得關(guān)注的是朱麗在《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》上詳述這個(gè)決定這件事。即使是在《美國(guó)周報(bào)》和《TMZ》時(shí)代，名人的個(gè)人健康仍然被看作，呃，隱私。而生殖健康就更是如此了。通過(guò)公開(kāi)這次手術(shù)，朱麗在表達(dá)一個(gè)溫和的政治觀點(diǎn)：她要打破生殖健康和健康之間的界限。

她也在打破一個(gè)文化藩籬。在她今天發(fā)表的文章中，朱麗強(qiáng)調(diào)雖然進(jìn)行了手術(shù)，甚至是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)手術(shù)，她仍感覺(jué)自己是一個(gè)真正的女性。這是她2013年所寫(xiě)文章的續(xù)篇，那篇文章詳述了她做雙側(cè)乳房切除術(shù)的決定?！拔乙稽c(diǎn)都不覺(jué)得自己少了女人味，”她在2013年寫(xiě)道。“我感覺(jué)充滿了力量，我做了一個(gè)重大的選擇，這絕對(duì)不會(huì)讓我失去女性特質(zhì)?！苯裉斓奈恼禄貞?yīng)了這句話：“我感覺(jué)我是女性，”她說(shuō)，“我為自己和家人做的這個(gè)抉擇讓我感到踏實(shí)?！?/p>

這是意義非凡的，不僅僅因?yàn)橹禧惖奶拐\(chéng)向公眾帶出了常被視為禁忌的話題。好萊塢向來(lái)強(qiáng)調(diào)美與健康分離，從其對(duì)女性形象一貫具爭(zhēng)議性的表現(xiàn)上更可見(jiàn)一斑。更明確地說(shuō)，是健康與所謂“健康”的分離。媒體行業(yè)一直重視形象和提倡消費(fèi)主義，在該行業(yè)看來(lái)，美不僅僅是健康愉悅的體現(xiàn)，還是可以通過(guò)犧牲健康來(lái)獲得的東西。它向我們，尤其是女性，售賣美容產(chǎn)品，如，肉毒桿素、日光浴美黑和整形，全都伴有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。換言之，它強(qiáng)調(diào)的是美麗——通常還包括年輕——比健康重要。

不管是字面意義還是以其他形式表現(xiàn)，以上信息的有害性顯而易見(jiàn)。好消息是，作為人類，我們正快速地進(jìn)步。但這并不意味著我們從此不再膚淺，或不再關(guān)注美貌、青春及與之相關(guān)的東西；而是媒體開(kāi)始明白美是一個(gè)整體——與健康緊密相連。當(dāng)然，女性仍然可以花錢(qián)讓自己更好看，有時(shí)以健康和生活質(zhì)量為代價(jià)?，F(xiàn)在比以往更清晰的是想要擁有健康氣息，那么最好的方法就是擁有健康的生活方式?！禖osmo》雜志上關(guān)于如何飲食讓頭發(fā)有光澤、皮膚光滑的文章；《嘉人》雜志分享的減壓小提示；瑜伽、冥想、“潔食”、排毒、藜麥的興起；大受歡迎的有機(jī)食物；原來(lái)真有“青汁”這東西。

取笑以上東西很容易，當(dāng)彼得潘情結(jié)遇上炫耀性消費(fèi)時(shí)，這是通常會(huì)發(fā)生的。但他們的建議是非常有益的：最終，美變得不一樣了，天然的就是最好的。

對(duì)明星而言，那也說(shuō)明了受歡迎越來(lái)越成為一個(gè)整體?！睹绹?guó)周刊》、《人民》雜志和《TMZ》都著重關(guān)注明星生活中的平凡瑣碎（“名人：他們跟我們是一樣的！”）。社交媒體給了明星更多平臺(tái)來(lái)分享人類共性。更多傳統(tǒng)的商業(yè)媒體也是如此。撇開(kāi)別的不說(shuō)，碧昂絲有一系列的瑜伽服裝，和享有素食供應(yīng)服務(wù)。格溫妮斯·帕特洛正在GOOP網(wǎng)站上推廣一套生活理念，同時(shí)搭賣無(wú)麩質(zhì)檸檬方塊餅的配方。布蕾克·萊弗利在Preserve網(wǎng)站上也在這樣做。甚至連金·卡戴珊——曾宣稱自己是真人版人體模特，也在兜售人性——她的生活方式，引人注目的話語(yǔ)，她當(dāng)明星、美容、理財(cái)?shù)奶厥夥绞健綆恼掌?/p>

在這樣的背景下，朱麗對(duì)于自己切除生殖器官的討論并不是特別驚人。早有名人利用自己的名聲進(jìn)行政治倡導(dǎo)，而朱麗（除卻其他身份）本身就是一位人權(quán)倡導(dǎo)者。（《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》在她發(fā)表的文章中對(duì)她的介紹是“電影導(dǎo)演以及聯(lián)合國(guó)難民事務(wù)高級(jí)專員辦事處特使?！保┲禧愱P(guān)注自身健康這件事讓她與其他利用自己名聲和個(gè)人經(jīng)歷來(lái)讓人關(guān)注健康問(wèn)題的明星站在同一陣線：邁克爾·J·?？怂古c帕金森癥，凱蒂·庫(kù)里克與結(jié)腸癌，魔術(shù)師約翰遜與艾滋病，帕德瑪·拉克希米與子宮內(nèi)膜異位，布魯克·希爾茲與產(chǎn)后抑郁癥，瑪麗亞·史萊佛與阿爾茨海默癥等。

然而，朱麗的倡導(dǎo)尤其有力，因?yàn)樗谟懻摰膯?wèn)題——更重要的是，她鼓勵(lì)大眾討論的問(wèn)題——與關(guān)于青春和欲望的文化成見(jiàn)密切相關(guān)。從某方面來(lái)說(shuō)，朱麗分享過(guò)度了，但她的過(guò)度分享卻是成效顯著的——遠(yuǎn)不是卡戴珊自拍照的無(wú)聊，也不是“明星圖片分享”的那種自戀。朱麗在談到她的手術(shù)時(shí)，也強(qiáng)調(diào)了內(nèi)在美和外在美是密不可分的。“我覺(jué)得自己是女性，”朱麗在文章中寫(xiě)道。這份聲明是先進(jìn)、有力的：“我會(huì)尋求自然的方式來(lái)增強(qiáng)我的免疫系統(tǒng)。”