There weren’t many positive attributes of the Soviet Union—in fact, just about the only one was their science program. Although most of it was inspired by military needs, there were quite a bit of spillover discoveries. The sprawling state machinery, although inefficient to run a nation, was able to allocate stupid amounts of time, money, and resources to backwater projects that would never get a green light in the west.
Back in the 50s the Soviets tried to tame and develop wolves into domestic animals they could use in the military. The wolf has a bite far stronger than any domestic dog,and also has far more accurate hearing and smell—perfect for tracking. They are also extremely aggressive and hardy animals, able to go for days without food or sleep. They would, in theory, make great guard dogs.
Best of luck with that one, comrade. It proved impossible to domesticate the wolf. Although puppies were removed from their mothers and hand-reared in comfortable homes with plenty of human attention, upon reaching adolescence the wolves simply refused to obey orders or adhere to any structure. They were also prone to become aggressive, snatching food wherever they could and attacking owners that tried to put them in line. A wild animal is always a wild animal. The domestic dog is an ancestor of the wolf, but clearly even the most aggressive breeds like pit bulls and Rottweilers have different genetic traits.
The aftermath of the experiment
The project was a total failure but spawned another venture that attempted to breed foxes to become more domesticated. Foxes were taken from the wild and from farms where they were reared for their fur. The tamer, more placid animals were bred with each other, and as a control the more aggressive foxes were only allowed to breed with each other.
Within a few generations the tame foxes were becoming tamer and tamer, welcoming human interaction and behaving more and more like pets, while the aggressive animals would take your finger off, just for touching their cage.
It seemed that the aggressive tendencies of the foxes were a function of their genetics. In order to test this, puppies of aggressive couplings were given to the more gentle fox mothers to rear, while gentle fox puppies were given to the aggressive mothers—it made no difference. Even inplanting embryos from aggressive foxes into more domesticated mothers did not produce marked results. An aggressive animal was an aggressive animal according to its lineage.
This is where it gets really interesting
As the generations of interbreeding only the tamer and more domesticated foxes continued, the tame animals began to show changes to their morphology. Sloppy ears, curly tails, white fur around their faces, and so forth. Not only did they behave more like domestic dogs, but they began to look like them as well. BY 20-30 generations of breeding, which only the Soviets could pull off with their massive government machinery, the foxes were practically household pets and looked less like foxes and more like common breeds. They also had the temperament to match.
It’s not hard to understand that continuing to breed and select the tame foxes and specifically choosing traits would soon land you with anything from a sheep dog to a shih tzu. More interesting, though, is the way that their appearance was absolutely linked to their genetic trait of being more placid and more easily tamed. It wasn’t necessary to look for changes in morphology to identify behavior characteristics, only to select breeding pairs according to how tame and well behaved they were—the rest would follow.
No one has applied these kinds of breeding regimens to the human race, but it would be logical to assume that similar rules apply. Humans are more complex, but to some extent, the more appealing and attractive a person is, the more well-balanced and social they are. It’s not just appearance but a genetic characteristic that defines behavior. There is a reason why gangsters often look so mean and nasty; it’s not just a put-up job. In the same way then, the females of the race are not only more physically appealing with softer skin and rounder faces, but they are also more amenable when it comes to social situations. Hence, the age-old BFF relationships that form overnight.
This has been deliberately bred into women, by the men that mated with them, over hundreds and thousands of years. Picking a female to mate with, a man would most likely pick an attractive one, because that also meant she was better behaved. On the flip side, a woman that was better behaved would be more likely to mate and thus pass on her more attractive characteristics to her offspring. Perhaps there is some truth to the concept of royal lineage after all.
The human application
What this means for men and women is that men’s more aggressive, dry, and logistical nature is not something they can change. Men do not need to get in touch with their emotions or seek out their feminine side—if anything that is a completely unnatural request. Furthermore, it’s just as unreasonable to expect a man to “behave” according to female standards as it would be to ask a woman to piss standing up.
That’s not to say that gentle characteristics cannot be displayed by men—of course they are capable of feelings and kind actions, etc. The point is that they have a genetic programming and a need for more assertive or even aggressive behavior. It’s simply a matter of finding an outlet for that, because that very male trait is most important to the survival of the human race.
It doesn’t take four decades of Soviet experimentation to tell you that the drawback of breeding the foxes into domestic animals is that they cannot survive well in the wild. Any dog that goes feral has a tough time, because they cannot easily hunt, they lack an aggressive “animal” drive and want to cuddle up to some higher power than themselves. They are inherently beta. The same goes for females and “pretty boys.” As lovely as they all are, they are not as capable of taking risks, meeting confrontation, taking leadership positions, arranging logistics, or meeting schedules. This is because their very nature makes them more placid and nurturing.
Of course the counter to that is more developed social skills that can get them what they need to survive by using others rather than fending for themselves. A wolf is more likely to bite your hand off, whereas a domestic dog will beg for food, make funny noises, play cold or injured, or hold one paw out. They have way more advanced non0-threatening social skills (as do women) and they also offer companionship, guard dog duties, tracking, and hunting, which are their latent skills from being wild animals. The same thing applies to women who offer social skills, home making skills, and parenting abilities to comfort their man who doesn’t have the same priorities.
Looking at the wolf and fox experiments, it’s easy to understand the differences between male and female humans are far more than just characteristics and social programming we can gloss over. Men must ensure that those characteristics are not lost. If we do not preserve our heritage, we will all be betas to our machinery and computer processors. Perhaps movies like The Matrix and Terminator carry a deeper message than we realized.
Read More: But You’re A Good Girl
