I do not play the battle of the genders one-uppers-and-put-downs. As you can tell from my pics, I am Mr. Natural. Hair serves many purposes. Cultures have their rules as to what is aesthetic. These dogmas are how women are sold on the philosophies of torture devices and rituals of Four-inch-pointed-toes stilettos (Chic is not dislocating one's arches.), brassieres, daily war-paint applications with deadly chemicals, and sensitive-area hair removal.
In case, anyone is wondering; I admire women who do not shave their legs. I'm often asked this as a "qualifying question." I do not demean women who engage in the aforementioned practices. However, I hope they would challenge themselves as to WHY.
Brooke Shields, Fan Bingbing, Cara Delevingne, Amal Clooney, Priyanka Chopra, Allison Williams, Camilla Belle, Emilia Clarke, Emma Watson, and Salma Hayek are among glamourous women who perform minimal tweaking to their eyebrows.
Rebecca, I'm sure you're amused by my comment and unsurprised. So, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
BTW, my barber trims my eyebrows and throws in a haircut. They are a vigorous wild thicket which has interfered with my sight.
You, Sir, are an upstanding human-being. I think you are absolutely right.
Maybe some day our "current" socially acceptable appearance practices won't exist at all. Services like engaging in hair removal is not a decision to be made lightly. It's painful and is a process.
The benefit after years of electing to have it done, is that the hair doesn't grow back as much, if at all in areas. This makes it less and less painful each time and then it becomes about saving time...if you don't have to shave for a few weeks than that allows you to do something else.
I'm a gal, that removes hair on an as needed basis, (which is determined by me). Your example of your own brows interfering with your sight would qualify as "as needed" in my books and I'd make the same call. :)