top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Dr_Dudley_Dabble 358 points359 points ago

For those wondering this is an "oxygen-acetylene" cutting torch . It is primarily used for cutting steel. In this picture it appears that she has opened the acetylene valve and lit the torch, but has yet to open the oxygen valve which "sharpens" the flame if you will. In its current state this wouldn't cut a spoon!

The torch's flame, after adjusting the oxygen, will look like this. The handle on it, or trigger, engages the cutting oxygen or what might be called the blasting oxygen. It expels oxygen to blow the metal out of the cut, otherwise it would melt and get everywhere!

You may read about it further here under "Oxy-fuel cutting".

EDIT: Here's a video Of a guy lightening one up! Mind you, he is using a torch not used for cutting. Here is a cool video using a heating torch to braze copper for sculpting.

[–]LuihuLeijona 27 points28 points ago

Fellow welder?

[–]Dr_Dudley_Dabble 37 points38 points ago

Elevator Mechanic who does a lot of iron work!

[–]morrisonschicken 59 points60 points ago

Ah, tough job, a lot of ups and downs.

[–]Dr_Dudley_Dabble 20 points21 points ago

We prefer to call them erections.

[–]geusebio 6 points7 points ago

[–]handmethatkitten 2 points3 points ago

elegant. that pun floored me.

[–]Trashcanman33 68 points69 points ago

Could one make a Lightsaber using this technology?

[–]TheRealPorkChop 9 points10 points ago

I don't think you want to lug around two huge tanks that are very explosive

[–]MrMastodon 9 points10 points ago

It would give some anonymous hero a way to kill us. Just aim for the tanks on our backs.

[–]pakattak 5 points6 points ago

And if it were a video game, said tanks would be painted BRIGHT RED, and flashing a signal saying SHOOT HERE.

[–]IHTFPhD 3 points4 points ago

Good guy mrmastodon, always thinking about the heroes.

[–]ohboycheese 2 points3 points ago

suddenly imagining flame enemies from gears of war... and geth pyros

[–]Dr_Dudley_Dabble 4 points5 points ago

haha, that'd be a painful ass lightsaber.

But with a straight-torch you kind of have a ... Light-dagger?

edit: This length of flame could be done with rentable and cheap equipment. If you had a straight-torch then yeah... You could hack some shit up and burn yourself terribly in the process.

[–]Zakusilov 4 points5 points ago

painful ass-lightsaber

[–]Symploce 17 points18 points ago

Thanks. I was expecting someone to ironically focus on the torch instead of the girl; didn't expect someone to actually post something fascinating and insightful about it.

[–]enoch00 4 points5 points ago

Upboat for knowledge!

[–]can_tankbuilder 524 points525 points ago

Perhaps she never had kids.

[–]NoGoodMc 90 points91 points ago

Her generation was responsible for the baby boomers. Safe bet she had kids.

[–]modulus0 2 points3 points ago

Yes. That generation certainly did 'get it on' a lot.

[–]bosniancheese 535 points536 points ago

She definitely did, look at her, she got any dick she wanted

[–]theneonwind 365 points366 points ago

Maybe she didn't want dicks.

[–]Meat_Confetti 144 points145 points ago

Silly, they didn't have those back then.

[–]MontanaCelt 57 points58 points ago

Fact: Lesbians didn't exist until the late '80s.

Fact: I have never been to a Library, ever.

[–]im_at_work_now 1 point2 points ago

Isle of Lesbos. Thanks, Sappho!

[–]The_Truth_is_a_Troll 433 points434 points ago

It's statistically likely that she wanted dicks. We don't have to pretend that gay is normal -- even if there's nothing wrong with it ethically, it's still abnormal. It's a safe guess/assumption that she was straight.

I'm sure the PC police crybaby bitch squad will downvote me into oblivion, but what else is new?

[–]Ziddletwix 33 points34 points ago

I think the issue is that abnormal has some pretty icky conotations. I mean, statistically, being from the USA is "abnormal", only 4% of people are. Statistically, 2% of the world is naturally blonde. But I've never heard someone call me abnormal because of either of those things, but both those numbers are about as common as being gay (about 4% of the US population openly identifies as beiing gay in surveys I've seen, which of course ignores various reasons that might be underreported).

Being gay is not nearly as common as being straight. But I still don't think abnormal is a great word to describe it. Sure, the definition is technically correct, according to the way most dictionaries define abnormal. But that doesn't mean it's a particularly apt descriptor, nor does it mean we are obligated to describe gay people as abnormal. The way abnormal is defined is less important than the way it is used, and regardless of what you MEAN when you say abnormal, it carries with it some connotations of "something being wrong". Which I would assume you don't think is true about being gay (although I suppose I don't know).

[–]StopTop 0 points1 point ago

Damn 4%? Thats nearly 1/20... Guess I need to make more gay friends...

[–]nattyd 58 points59 points ago

It's statistically likely that she wanted white guys. We don't have to pretend that dating black guys is normal -- even if there's nothing wrong with it ethically, it's still abnormal. It's a safe guess/assumption that she was into white men.

See how the word "normal" is incredibly loaded?

[–]Degausser616 39 points40 points ago

Actually, you cant have factual statistics about sexuality when everyone is pressured to be heterosexual. We'll never know how common homosexual/bisexual/pansexual feelings are until straight privilege is a thing of the past.

[–]Mr_The_Captain 107 points108 points ago

I feel like your name is pretty appropriate for that comment

[–]only_says_fuck_yeah 154 points155 points ago

fuck yeah

[–]polarbeer 19 points20 points ago

Very consistent.

/me applauds

[–]only_says_fuck_yeah 48 points49 points ago

[–]Aiyon 11 points12 points ago

You did good today, only_says_fuck_yeah, you did good.

[–]only_says_fuck_yeah 1 point2 points ago

[–]bricardo 28 points29 points ago

Less common doesn't equate to abnormal.

[–]zhige 149 points150 points ago

I'm sure you realize that "abnormal" has implications beyond "statistically less common".

[–]Gorillaz_Noodle 16 points17 points ago

Not necessarily.

In psychology, something is considered "abnormal" if it is outside of 3 standard deviations from the mean.

[–]TI-89_Titanium 17 points18 points ago

Abnormal is one of those words that is so apt in so many situations, but can't (or shouldn't) be used because of its connotation.

[–]The_Truth_is_a_Troll 20 points21 points ago

100% aware. I'd be more explicit about it, but I think it's obvious, and anyone that wants to claim it's a matter of statistics is just evading the facts.

I explicitly stated there is nothing morally wrong with it, so I'm not sure why everyone is all butthurt (and there's some interesting synergy, using that word when it comes to the topic of homosexuality.)

[–]broletariado 49 points50 points ago

Statistically speaking, a child is more likely to be born female than male. That does not make being born a male "abnormal."

You're flirting with some potentially offensive language, especially when you turn to phrases like "butthurt" to defend them.

[–]Modthryth 23 points24 points ago

So you are aware that "abnormal" has implications beyond "statistically less common"...so how do you justify using "abnormal" again? "Abnormal" has a negative connotation (you agree, right?) so why use it to describe homosexuality?

[–]sje46 92 points93 points ago

"Butthurt" is also a "thought-terminating cliche" used to dismiss actual concerns as irrelevant because being offended apparently means you're also wrong. Try not to use such heavy language to casually dismiss real concerns, whether you think those people are being silly or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

http://maverickvoice.com/big-ideas/thought-terminating-cliche/

[–]lolpete 38 points39 points ago

Thank you for bringing the term "Thought Terminating Cliche" to my attention. I've always wondered the name of those that annoy me so much, like "U Mad?"

[–]sje46 28 points29 points ago

U mad? is the perfect example of it, but so is pretty much any other word or phrase used just to show that the other person is offended as if that has any bearing at all. I also get pretty annoyed with "you're just being politically correct", and "haters".

[–]number1dilbertfan 29 points30 points ago

"politically correct" is an especially toxic one, because there's a very obvious but very frequently unexamined implication with it. watch:

"these statistics show a disproportionately high incarceration rate for black men. i know it's not politically correct to call them violent, but"

really lean on "political" when you say it and you'll see what i'm talking about. there's this whole second statement inside "politically correct," and what it says is "you and i both know that this is literally correct, but due to political reasons, we won't be able to acknowledge this shared truth." it's a straight-up dog whistle. "they can't hear what i'm saying but you can and you know it's true."

so when somebody says that they know it's not politically correct to do what they're doing, they're actually saying that it's totally the right thing to do but just not allowed by society. what a bunch of rebels. takes a lot of courage to anonymously call gay men abnormal.

[–]nattyd 9 points10 points ago

This is a really profound and useful point, which had not totally crystallized in my mind.

[–]Fenkirk 2 points3 points ago

Thank for summarising what is wrong with such terminology.

[–]stayclose 9 points10 points ago

oh, so men are abnormal? is that how that works?

[–]number1dilbertfan 9 points10 points ago

"no no no, see, men are normal because i am one."

[–]Blake83 5 points6 points ago

Dude said "maybe." Maybe she didn't like guys. That statement is right.

[–]SuperSoggyCereal 5 points6 points ago

Homosexual people have existed for about as long as we have written history. The fact that it is an extremely well-known aspect of human sexuality means that it's part of who we are as a species. So what makes it abnormal in the most literal sense of the word? Nothing, really. A statement like, "Humans are primarily heterosexual, but homosexuals make up a sizeable minority of the population, somewhere beween 2% and 5%, according to self-identification," would be absolutely correct, and essentially defines normal human sexual behaviour as including homosexuality.

That's the point zhige is trying to make. It is definitely less common, and you could say that it does indeed deviate from the majority, but it's part of the greater picture of human sexuality, and this means it is absolutely normal.

[–]zed_three 6 points7 points ago

I'm not sure why everyone is all butthurt

If you really think that, you are being deliberately obtuse.

[–]ivebeenhereallsummer 4 points5 points ago

Yeah, he needs to stop exceeding 90 degrees but being less than 180 degrees. That dick.

[–]zulavos 3 points4 points ago

Stop making sense!! It's fucking creepy.

[–]kainsavage 4 points5 points ago

Words are hard.

Do words innately have implications beyond their definition, or do people read implications based on their understanding of the world?

My wife and I have this debate all the time; I use the word "weird" to mean "unusual", but she is adamant in her belief that it is actually a negative thing to say as if there were some innate implication of "weird" being "bad".

Obviously, my personal opinion is that if you use a word exactly as its definition suggests, then any implications are on the head of the interpreter rather than the original speaker (unless tone and context come into play, but this is the internet so that doesn't really apply).

In the poster's original message, he used "abnormal" to mean "out of the ordinary", which is a valid use of the word. If you have a negative view of the word, then it might be your interpretation, not that he actually meant it to be negative.

[–]KatieCass11 3 points4 points ago

Your wife is weird.

[–]kainsavage 0 points1 point ago

You think? She's really kind, intelligent, and attractive... so I don't mind these little differences of opinion.

Also, you are on reddit... there's an above-average chance that we think somewhat similarly with regard to semantics simply by virtue of statistics and demographics.

[–]MasterP_bot 2 points3 points ago

I'm pretty sure Katie was making a joke there.

And if you are as well, then I just got alley-oop wooshed.

[–]tealcdargoworf 10 points11 points ago

  • homosexuality is found in every mammalian species

  • how are you defining "normal". what percentage of a population dictates "normal" or not? If it's a natural part of mammalian species does the percentage even matter?

  • should people be made to feel "not normal" because you say so?

[–]ZizeksAndBalances 7 points8 points ago

reddit.txt

[–]Agodoga 18 points19 points ago

So brave! Upon hearing these words an eagle cried tears that turned into diamonds as they hit the ground surrounded by rivers running red with the blood of slain thruthsayers!

[–]TiSpork 1 point2 points ago

So what is your definition of normal?

[–]number1dilbertfan 4 points5 points ago

"Myself and people like me."

[–]TheGimmeGirl 5 points6 points ago

Sure let's not pretend it's 'normal' because it's just being PC to do so.

Let's also pretend I don't have a friend whose father won't speak to him because he isn't 'normal' and how he often thinks of suicide because he just wishes he could be 'normal'. (To clarify those are his exact words "I wish I could be normal")

So yeah, when I try to convince him that he is 'normal' and that he shouldn't kill himself, I'll stop pretending that I'm just saying it because it's true and I'm only saying it because I'm trying to be Politically Correct.

[–]buggerbees 28 points29 points ago

Statistically it's not something you'd classify as "abnormal" so much as "less common". It would be safer to bet that she is straight than to bet that she is gay, but its foolish to call it a "safe" bet. I'd need a much wider ratio than 1/12* to call something a "safe" bet, but maybe I'm more cautious than you when it comes to gambling.

  • this is a high estimate. Probably less than 10%, though I don't think 3-4% estimates are inclusive enough. Long story short: counting is hard.

[–]weeglos 30 points31 points ago

nor·mal  
/ˈnôrməl/
Adjective
Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Noun
The usual, average, or typical state or condition.
Synonyms
adjective.      regular - standard - ordinary - common - usual
noun.   normality - normalcy - perpendicular

Since the presence of gayness within an individual is not common, usual, typical, or expected, it is not "normal" for an individual within a society to be gay. Not saying that there's anything wrong with being gay, just saying that the presence of gayness within a society is so low on a percentage basis that any given individual in a society can be expected not to be gay.

However, if your sample population are customers in a gay bar, then it's abnormal for that population for any individual not to be gay. It's all about the statistics.

[–]buggerbees 30 points31 points ago

That's not true, gay bars are ~65% drunk college girls

[–]buggerbees 17 points18 points ago

In typical resdit style, you're using a technical definition to defend an offensive or hurtful way to describe a people. Technically right doesn't make it the best word to use, and in an academic setting, were you presenting data at a talk or something similar, you wouldn't risk professionalism by describing homosexuality as "abnormal", which has always carried with it a negative connotation when applied to human characteristics.

[–]number1dilbertfan 5 points6 points ago

"but the dictionary said less than a paragraph, there's no way anything could be more nuanced than that!"

[–]sje46 26 points27 points ago

I'm not sure why you posted the definition to "normal" instead of "abnormal".

"Abnormal" does mean, well "not normal", yes, but it also has a negative connotation. In fact, googling "abnormal" gives the result of "Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable." Emphasis mine.

In psychology, the definition of "abnormal behavior" requires that the behavior not only differ from the norm, but also cause distress (mental pain) or disorder (inability to live a healthy/productive life). Since homosexuality is a psychological condition, you should probably refrain from calling it an abnormality.

This may seem like over-the-top political correctness, and that everyone is being overly sensitive. But don't forget that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until the late 70s, and there are still tons of people who consider it as something actively wrong that needs to be fixed. So how you use labels is especially important in this case. Try not to use words that refer to a morally neutral thing as a possibly bad thing, even if you don't feel that way yourself.

source: psychology major, if that means anything.

[–]fap-on-fap-off 4 points5 points ago

However, if your sample population are customers in a gay bar, then it's abnormal for that population for any individual not to be gay. It's all about the statistics.

It's all about context.

FTFY

[–]iLoveNox 2 points3 points ago

So just for kicks you do indeed have better than 1/12 in this situation. I don't think Reddit has spent much time outside with the 1/12 and 14% of the population being gay statistics I see being used.

[–]buggerbees 2 points3 points ago

In my response, you'll see that I mention that we can't accurately count homosexuals. 1/12 is an estimate. It's probably somewhere between 1/10 to 1/20. This is a shitty link but I'm on my phone and can't be bothered: http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/howmanygays.htm

[–]Aaron1977 3 points4 points ago

Pardon me I've been drinking but am I missing something? 1/12 = 8.33%, not 14%... that would be like 1/7.14. In case you're wondering (and I'm sure you're not) its Four Roses Bourbon and Tecate in 50's retro cans.

[–]iLoveNox 2 points3 points ago

No 1/12 and 14% each used in separate comments to state the part of the population that is gay. I wasn't saying they were equal.

[–]wholetyouinhere 6 points7 points ago

This is the most irrelevant non-point I've read all day. You're arguing technical semantics against a phantom concept no one even mentioned.

If there really is no social or personal bias in what you're saying, as you go to great pains to point out, then you're using lots of words to say nothing at all.

But when you use terms like "crybaby bitch squad", you're implying that you do, in fact, have some kind of agenda. So what am I supposed to take away from all this?

[–]absolutelynothing 1 point2 points ago

Well, yes obviously. However, using the word abnormal to describe anything less than 50% of a given set is speculative. Saying it's abnormal to be a man makes no sense even though it's technically true. Same goes for being white or Christian or owning a cat.

[–]lastfadnap 7 points8 points ago

Most gay people I know don't mind much when people assume that someone is straight, but most people I know would be at least slightly offended if someone called them "abnormal." I get your point, but the word "normal" has normative connotations to most people, it's not just a statistical description. The opposite of "normal" to most people is "weird."

I read through your comments to find a random fact about you as an example. You've been to England. Most people in the US haven't been. Does that mean that going to England is abnormal? No. That's a poor use of the word. Is it a statistical aberration? No. It happens consistently, but aberration is not the word for it. Is it less common than not going to England? Yes. Should you watch every word you say when talking about travel so as not to exclude anyone who has been to England? Hell no. But, at the same time, if I (who have not been to England) was always making statements that worked under the presumption that nobody had been to England, you might correct me, as might your friends who knew you had gone.

Of course it's different when it's going to England, which gives positive status, and homosexuality, which has been historically considered a bad thing, and which people have been killed over.

The thing I hate about PC is that people shouldn't hide their ignorance, because then nobody will ever know to teach them why they're wrong.

[–]Better_Than_Nothing 4 points5 points ago

It's not "Statistically likely". The probability is higher, but its still a mutually exclusive event. Homosexuality naturally occurs in about 10% of humans, and saying that more people are straight, doesn't make this person straight.

The percent of non-religious people in the US is around 15%. So by your logic, I could say that everybody on reddit is "statistically likely" to be religious because 85% of Americans are religious, which we all know is not the case.

[–]victorsmonster 3 points4 points ago

The neckbeard is strong in this one.

[–]paulflorez 3 points4 points ago

He said "maybe" she didn't want dicks, not "probably" or "most likely". Sounds like you just felt like climbing on a soapbox about calling gays "abnormal" and insisting it is not offensive. What's the point?

[–]RonaldFuckingPaul 37 points38 points ago

Definitely a LEZBRO.

[–]reddit111987 15 points16 points ago

She's played a round or two of golf in her day.

[–]DanDotOrg 15 points16 points ago

Spent lots of time in the rough, if you know what I mean...

I can't imagine what that means...

[–]Amishhellcat 2 points3 points ago

some of the chaps there do swing some rather large clubs

[–]cyanoacrylate 81 points82 points ago

Not all women want kids.

[–]poteaser 32 points33 points ago

My wife definitely does not want kids.

[–]cyanoacrylate 53 points54 points ago

I definitely do not blame her at all.

[–]THE_DARK_L0RD_SATAN 21 points22 points ago

Definitely.

[–]ConfirmPassword 3 points4 points ago

Undoubtedly, my lord.

[–]snowplowj 13 points14 points ago

Sometimes things happen despite your best efforts and you end up with a 6 month old son pushing a six-pack of beer around your kitchen floor.

[–]Ceejae 3 points4 points ago

Was that true back then? Genuine question. I believe it was a lot less socially acceptable not to.

Obviously not all women would have had children, but the vast majority, at least.

[–]billana 20 points21 points ago

Back then, I don't think that even mattered. It's just what you did. You got married and had kids.

[–]DarknStormies 5 points6 points ago

Seriously. In fact, she probably has a kid. She looks about twenty.

[–]Jonesty 37 points38 points ago

that still doesn't mean she procreated

[–]FoKFill 24 points25 points ago

Maybe she died in the war.

[–]alexanderwales 5 points6 points ago

Considering that she was a woman, the odds are very low.

[–]ZippyDan 4 points5 points ago

commas were the wrong choice

[–]astrofarian 6 points7 points ago

You underestimate the drift in the standards of female attractiveness over the decades. Look at the film stars of the era - they are NOTHING like her, almost direct opposite in all respects. She looks cute to us now, but back then she was in all probability considered "just ok" at best.

[–]monkeedude1212 23 points24 points ago

Sometimes its the ones who can get any dick they want that turn out to swing the other way.

[–]Snowdart 9 points10 points ago

Apparently Reddit hates lesbians, unless they're the porn variety. I gave you an upvote.

[–]monkeedude1212 4 points5 points ago

Some men just can't accept the harsh realities...

[–]kinglykidd 2 points3 points ago

Not all kids wanted women.

[–]LincolnshireSausage 2 points3 points ago

Maybe her husband went off to fight on the frontlines and never returned. She couldn't love again and spent the rest of her life a lonely widow with only 17 cats to keep her company.

[–]elbiot 55 points56 points ago

Someone has to say it: GILF

[–]ieatpants 6 points7 points ago

[–]TheHairyHungarian 3 points4 points ago

I'm sorry the SRS can't take a joke.

[–]Gorillaz_Noodle 2 points3 points ago

Really?

They reported this?

[–]TheHairyHungarian 2 points3 points ago

Someone reported me? That's unfortunate. I guess I will fall on the mercy of the mods here.

[–]uglydavie 9 points10 points ago

If she kept her torch burning like that, odds are she sprayed slag all over her potential suitors.

[–]Alacritous 19 points20 points ago

That's hot.

[–]KennyFuckingPowers 5 points6 points ago

Good point, somebody's child.

[–]yootskah 92 points93 points ago

It always astounds me how fundamentally that brief period of WWII changed society.

This girl likely had no conception that she could be a welder. Countless other women never imagined themselves as anything other than housewives, secretaries or cooks. In WWII they became everything from engineers to pilots.

WWII changed how women viewed their place in society. It changed how everyone viewed the broader world. Few people left their immediate locality before then, suddenly people were shuttling all over the country and the world.

People's conception of what they could achieve expanded exponentially. Given how horrible the suffering that conflict created was, it's weird to think that so much benefit has resulted.

[–]bullshiiiit 37 points38 points ago

Only out of necessity, not because there was an actual change in societal values. After the war, they all went back to their "assigned" roles and were still relegated to housewife, secretary, airline stewardesses etc. Mad Men isn't that far from the truth. It would be another 25 years after WWII before women were even considered to be somewhat equal in the workplace, another 15 years after that before wages became closer to men. Even today there are issues with women in the workplace, it was only in 1994 that the Pentagon lifted the ban on women in the military.

Seriously, you have the rosiest of glasses on, womens lib movement happened for a reason.

I always found it funny how people interpret the past so positively. Like conservatives who look back at the 50s and say "what a great time that was". The same 50s that had the threat of impending nuclear holocaust, extreme racism, illegal human experimentation etc etc. You're not wrong, just not entirely correct. If anything the 20s did more for women's rights than the 40s. Post WWII actually marked a period of conservatism where many trends were rolled back.

[–]yootskah 21 points22 points ago

Dude, things don't happen overnight.

The fundamental break happened when women realized they could do these things. Yes the men came home and took back the jobs, but the curtain had been pulled back.

It's basically the same story for black Americans too. They flocked to cities for work during WWII and the idea that they didn't have to be second-class citizens began to take hold in a way it never had before.

The revolutions of the 60s were made possible by the groundwork laid during WWII. That's a pretty standard understanding of the 20th century. I'm not going out on a limb here.

[–]thiscnidocyte 0 points1 point ago

You're right that the richer women had little first hand experience but poorer or non-white women have always had to work. Supporting her husband on the farm, being a seamstress, being a housemaid or indentured servant, working in a school lunch room, etc. You get the point. Women not working until this period is a mythological creature.

[–]Alacritous 4 points5 points ago

The exposure to other cultures was a step in the right direction, then the war ended and it all went away. The social isolation of the United States resumed its course. The geographical isolation of the country has had negative side effects. Any benefit that the ones that travelled brought home didn't last long.

[–]DarknStormies 4 points5 points ago

"Best Country In The World", says the man who went to Canada once as a child.

[–]Blasterkid 126 points127 points ago

Wendy the welder, Electric Boat Co., 1943.

Pretty big deal for a woman to be doing this kind of work in those days.

[–]ratjea 60 points61 points ago

It was very common during WWII, actually! With so many men in the armed forces and a huge need for war materiel, women were able to get jobs they were normally kept from doing, such as welding. "Rosie the Riveter" was very real.

[–]RobinTheBrave 36 points37 points ago

It was common, but it was still a big deal for women to be doing jobs that had been traditionally men-only before the war. Lots of people didn't think they could do it and were proved wrong, and after the war more women demanded equality at work.

[–]haveigotaboxforyou 6 points7 points ago

My grandmother put together electrics for planes :)

[–]what_a_cat_astrophe 2 points3 points ago

Rosie the Riveter was the propaganda used to hook women into the welding industry. For a lot of them, it was extremely empowering for them to be doing a man's work and many of them really enjoyed themselves.

Unfortunately, after the war when the men came back, the majority of these women lost their jobs as welders and a lot of hearts were broken.

I watched a documentary on this in high school (apologies, I forget the name) and it interviewed a couple of women who were in this line of work back then. One was exceptionally attached to it, and sadly was unable to ever find another job in welding again.

[–]kesselrun_7 12 points13 points ago

Not during wartime. This was extremely commonplace

[–]mistergutsy 10 points11 points ago

I found out the day she passed away that my grandma built Flying Fortresses. She was a cool old lady who married a "retired" bank robber. Also several days after my other grandpa passed, I found out through his Army paperwork that he was in every major battle of the ETO under Patton and had tons of awards. He only talked about pissing in the Rhine with Patton. Fuck my grandparents were cool. At least I have reddit, I guess...

[–]slasher_lash 4 points5 points ago

The welder? Isn't that a torch?

[–]thatissomeBS 0 points1 point ago

When I was a welder I used torches every day. The welder is a title for her, not the instrument.

[–]AmazingIsTired 2 points3 points ago

No it wasn't. It was very common during WW2.

[–]rockychunk 2 points3 points ago

My cousin used to work for EB in Groton!

[–]Se7en_speed 6 points7 points ago

I work there now, none of the welders are that hot

[–]fine_sharts_degree 12 points13 points ago

[–]seanymacmacmac 9 points10 points ago

They were really saving buttons for the war effort I guess.

[–]CptnKrank 34 points35 points ago

This is an x-post from r/HistoryPorn, credit where credit's due OP.

[–]adamleee 39 points40 points ago

That's never going to cut with that flame.

[–]boredcanadian 11 points12 points ago

I assumed she was heating up that nut to unstick it.

[–]neofatalist 5 points6 points ago

that sounds like a euphemism.

[–]dapostman 8 points9 points ago

My First Thought.

[–]opie2 2 points3 points ago

You need a neutral flame to cut. This flame is way out of balance, I assume for the purposes of making it look good for the photo. Neutral flame.

[–]randygiesinger 2 points3 points ago

So I wasn't the only one. YOUR FLAME IS TOO CARBONIZING

[–]mambypambyland 11 points12 points ago

And now women can serve on the front lines and die for their country too! Shouldn't be too long til they have to sign up for selective service too. I love equality :D

[–]llamasauce 9 points10 points ago

No one should have to sign up for the draft.

[–]chaseoc 2 points3 points ago

Thats a very idealistic viewpoint. Tell that to the WWII draftees.

[–]janitar1 208 points209 points ago

Wow, I didn't see this on the front page a few days ago...

Looking at OP's comments in this thread... What an asshat.

[–]Masema 127 points128 points ago

Not everyone is subscribed to /r/historyporn

[–]StaberW 162 points163 points ago

But still... Taking a top scoring image from a rather large subreddit, stripping it from its given context and origin, adding a funny title and posting it in one of the largest subs. That's karmawhoring in my eyes.

Edit: autocorrect

[–]Masema 17 points18 points ago

Indeed, and OP has clearly demonstrated that karma whoring was afoot.

I was just pointing out that it wasn't on "the" front page (inasmuch as there is "a" front page).

[–]EbonicPlague 17 points18 points ago

with 2300 net upvotes, I guarantee you it made the front page of r/all.

[–]Holybasil 12 points13 points ago

Can confirm. That is where I first saw it.

[–]Viking_Lordbeast 3 points4 points ago

Well shit. I've been spelling "inasmuch." as 3 separate words my whole life.

[–]criticalmess 2 points3 points ago

OP really is a faggot, his overview his full of racism and trolling.

[–]NotSureIfNameTakenOr 21 points22 points ago

I'm glad someone posted it to a popular subreddit so I could see it. No need to act butthurt.

[–]YouGuysAreSick 2 points3 points ago

There's cross post for this. That brings new subscribers to /r/HistoryPorn which is an awesome subreddit and he could have provided some details since it's actually interesting to some.

"Somebody's grandma" --> Pure karmawhoring.

[–]PixelSplitter 5 points6 points ago

Although they should be, that is one of the better subreddits on here

[–]worldchrisis 5 points6 points ago

WELL THEY SHOULD BE

[–]wrinkleneck71 9 points10 points ago

On /r/All it was frontpage for a while.

[–]janitar1 2 points3 points ago

I'm not subscribed to it either but it still showed up on my front page from it's popularity.

[–]YouGuysAreSick 2 points3 points ago

Well you should. It's very interesting, really!

[–]OneOfDozens 3 points4 points ago

well he simply couldn't allow the pic to remain on reddit without adding the obligatory "badass" that describes fucking everything on here

[–]slasher_lash 1 point2 points ago

Neither did I. Glad someone posted it so I could see it.

[–]bubbletrollbutt 4 points5 points ago

My grandmother lost both her ring fingers cutting metal during ww2. A year apart between each accident too. Her doctor was good so you couldn't tell. She didn't have a space. They fixed her bones in her hand so it was almost normal. I miss her.

[–]tim-buk-tu 3 points4 points ago

My grandma worked in the blueprint shop building Liberty Ships in Southern California in WWII. Her little sister was actually a riveter in the same factory . . . .

[–]kiky23 3 points4 points ago

My Great Grandma was a motor maid during WWII. She was a total badass. We displayed her leather chaps at her funeral.

[–]emma_stones_lisp 3 points4 points ago

You guys are all faggots, including OP.

[–]samyall 18 points19 points ago

I feel sorry for OP, he is getting berated that this is a repost from a non default sub-reddit, which he isnt even subscribed to. He didnt even pretend it was is grandmother for karma. He is even responding with witty comments to accusations and yet is still being downvoted.

Dont worry OP, I dont think you are a faggot.

Unless you are lying in which case you are literally Hitler.

[–]jefjefjef 3 points4 points ago

I don't know what comments you're looking at from OP, but I was unaware calling people "fagets" was witty.

[–]dickcheney777 2 points3 points ago

Saw this in /all about a week ago...

[–]samyall 0 points1 point ago

Not everyone goes on /r/all. Reddit has sub-reddits for a reason, so that you can filter out the stuff you dont want. I dont want /r/atheism popping up when I want ducks giving me advice on how to dispose of a body.

[–]UserNumber42 6 points7 points ago

Looks like Uma Thurman.

[–]perfsurf 5 points6 points ago

"Somebody's grandma being a badass in WW2 (xpost from /r/HistoryPorn)" works much better. Honestly the more subscribers the better.

[–]TheBestBigAl 3 points4 points ago

How old is she? She looks like she'd still be in school rather than working in a...wherever that is.

[–]Sharamik 2 points3 points ago

Folks started working earlier in those days. School only went up until you were 14/15

[–]Grandmaofhurt 2 points3 points ago

OP, I have you tagged as "Reposting Shit".

You didn't even wait a week to repost this!

[–]portezbie 2 points3 points ago

Someone must've colorized this right?

[–]Sharamik 2 points3 points ago

My grandma made artillery shells in a London factory during ww2. The factory was bombed, but she survived because she was in the toilet at the time, which was housed in another building.

[–]FDichotomy 2 points3 points ago

Oh my God, I saw this in r/historyporn days ago... I should have x-posted it and got all that karma! Damn it!

[–]joe_peters 3 points4 points ago

[–]acecharkie 3 points4 points ago

(x post from r/Historyporn)

[–]aedriolo 3 points4 points ago

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepooooooost.

[–]ResilientHodor 3 points4 points ago

repost from /r/HistoryPorn

[–]BenderEsGrande 3 points4 points ago

history porn thief.

[–]Olivero 2 points3 points ago

Is this photo a candid or was it staged?

[–]Jimmars 2 points3 points ago

wasn't this on historyporn a while ago?

[–]macrotechee 2 points3 points ago

Stolen from /r/historyporn

[–]Ronaldr5 2 points3 points ago

My grandmother worked in ship yards in Mississippi or Louisiana during the war. She was also in WAC and was stationed in Arkansas. She's 90 now and still kicks ass.

[–]Yellsrandomquotes 9 points10 points ago

10/10 would bang

[–]osirisphotography 9 points10 points ago

YESTERDAY, YESTERDAY this was reposted you savage.

[–]workingkinda 1 point2 points ago

Finally someone who doesn't try to claim the picture as someone they know or are related to....

[–]ErmahgerdMerker 3 points4 points ago

Reposted from/r/HistoryPorn, good job.

[–]mikef55 4 points5 points ago

You should probably say this is a repost from /r/historyporn and spare everyone calling you a faggot.

[–]ano_000 3 points4 points ago

Ripped from /r/HistoryPorn

[–]LaronX 1 point2 points ago

All this blabla if she wanted kids or not sush. Lets focus on the importent stuff. It is a pretty looking girl doing awesome stuff. Can't you guys focus one time without drolling for boobs or screaming in glee for cats?..... or both.

[–]Matt_Ron 2 points3 points ago

She's my kind of gal. Red in the cheeks from fighting feral dogs off her dust farm at dawn, welding till dusk then driving an ambulance right through the blitz while the others cower below ground in their shelters.

[–]CoolStoryYo 3 points4 points ago

Wasn't this posted in /r/HistoryPorn a week ago?

[–]D-DayDodger 2 points3 points ago

Reeeeeeeeepost.

[–]chillsen 0 points1 point ago

how is this being a badass? its normal work back in those times.