>>31283
>Before modern feminism seldom did women ever engange in creative/intelectual ares as Ashley does.
This is a very stupid statement. Were women doing the same thing as men? No, but to state that women did nothing creative is wrong.
>Specially the technology stuff.
Obviously. Restoring vintage radios wasn't a reality in 1880. Of course in history women haven't traditionally repaired vintage radios or took an interest in technology. Technology as we know it is a fairly recent development. Feminism is at an all time high and there are no women into technology as an interest other than men pretending to be women. Feminism hasn't affected anything one way or another in that regard.
>women in tech is a feminist idea, a very modern one in fact.
Never have I advocated nor uttered the phrase "women in tech". I don't care if a tranny, black, or a woman has an interest in technology. "Women in technology" is a phrase you hear strictly when talking about STEM in college or in the workforce. Outside of that, people interested in technology as a hobby focus on the technology itself rather than politics or gender. I never hear "women in technology" when researching technology topics or reading discussion about a certain type of technology. This is a projection of what you hear on the outside as someone not interested in it, it's a political statement not related to anyone actually interested in it. College is a scam and most of the time women shouldn't work, be it in technology or entry level jobs such as being a secretary. Having an interest in something does not mean I automatically align with a certain group's ideals. Simply being a woman and having an interest in technology does not mean that I want more women to enroll in STEM college courses. That's retarded, especially when I think college is a scam. To be clear, the difference here is the word "interest". Most of the "women in tech" that you hear about are not interested in technology. That's why they suck at it. There was no push for getting more men into STEM, because men are already doing it and interested in it.
>It's pretty unhygienical.
>I also don't see the purpose it could serve other than looking unkempt.
Unhygenical isn't a word you ESL subhuman. Shaving pubes actually disrupts the natural flora and fauna of the vagina, which results in infections being much more common among women who shave. Pubes serve a purpose.
>I guess we might as well stop cutting our hair or trimming our nails, right?
Yes. Cutting hair is unnecessary and men look much better with hair than without it. I understand trimming hair, but to feel insecure and like you're unhygienic with hair is lil bitch shit. You've let your corporate overlords convince you that your body in its natural state is incorrect, that nature is wrong, and you need to buy multiple products to fix this mistake. It's similar logic to a much more damaging and permanent procedure, circumcision. It isn't "feministy" to reject funding billionaire corporations over a non-issue. If I were a man, I would have a beard, armpit hair, chest hair, pubes, leg hair, and arm hair. Also "appealing to nature" does have its time. In nature our nails would naturally be short because we endured much more labor-intensive work than we do now, along with rooting in dirt for food which would naturally wear down nail length.
You'll notice that the advertising in the early days of shaving (~1910's, which initially was aimed for armpits) solely either shames women for natural body hair or focuses on the texture of a smooth surface, rather than offering the supposed hygienic advantages of shaving. Meanwhile, advertisements for something like soap or toothpaste will focus of the hygienic benefits of the product. You've probably never shaved your armpits (even though it's supposedly unhygienic to have armpit hair), but, if you have, then you would notice that your sweat is constantly leaking down your body. You need deodorant to solve this problem. Now you've been sold two unnecessary products that solve two non-issues. However, when you have body hair, it retains moisture at a much better rate than having no hair. Thus, your body is cleaner and you have less sweat dripping on your body.
>inb4 ew you must be smelly
Not really. A slight musk if you dig into my armpit. This is also natural, our scent is meant to be there and carries pheromones, which make us more sexually attractive to the people smelling our bodies. I never find bodily sweat to be unattractive, whether it's on a man or a woman. Once again, that's lil bitch shit to be grossed out by natural scents. Your great great grandfather would be ashamed at how repulsed you are by women in their natural state. Similarly, to require a man to be smooth is gay. I want a masculine man. Obscuring signs of puberty/sexual maturity is strange.
Also, if you're against pedophilia then it's strange you're seemingly in favor of shaved pussy. Shaved vaginas were only recently heavily popularized by pornography because it was an attempt to make women look more prepubescent and youthful, it was "naughty". It was never about hygiene. If it was, then men would shave just as much as women. It started solely for sexual reasons that has in the past ~20 years become the norm. Women who grow pubes and shave them are attempting to relive their youth, when in reality, bare vaginas should be reserved for those who naturally have bare vaginas (little girls).
>inb4 ancient Egyptian tweezers are proof that all women were plucking their pussies years ago
Women had a lot more to focus on than plucking 500 hair follicles out of their vaginas. It's incredibly time consuming and painful to do that, especially when you have much more important matters at hand.