Probably not what you're thinking, furry reader! Ms. X is in fact questioning modern day standards and breeding practices.
What started this train of thought was a fascinating article explaining how males of different species seem to evolve faster than the females of the species, hence the 'flashier' appearance a lot of males have.
In nearly all species, males seem to ramp up glitzier garbs, more graceful dance moves and more melodic warbles in a never-ending vie to woo the best mates. Called sexual selection, the result is typically a showy male and a plain-Jane female. Evolution speeds along in the males compared to females.
So what we have to ask, is what happens when humans are directing all the breeding choices of a species? And their choices are driven by a "standard" that defines appearance in exquisite detail? And worse, what if that "standard" of appearance is more appropriately descriptive of a female member of the species?
In other words, what great brilliance of look and action could male dogs have achieved, if the breeders weren't 'keeping the man down'?