Not really exredpill but I have no idea where else to go with this as I don't seem to be able to get replies on PPD or MensLib and TBP doesn't like serious posts.

I'm trying to figure out what I think about masculinity, namely

I don't actually know whether I have a problem with specific versions of masculinity, with masculinity as such or with the idea of gender in general

Everyone this side of the red pill agrees that toxic masculinity is bad because it puts undue restrictions on the behaviors considered acceptable for men. Yet I don't see how supposedly non-toxic masculinity is substantially better in this regard, doesn't masculinity always come down to a set of normative guidelines policing the behavior of men?

People complain about "an ugly sexist world [...] that insists on keeping boys and girls in designated boxes" (source) and yet the action they propose in response is very often some variant of "Therefore we have to bring more male role models into our boys' lives to teach them how to properly fit into a slightly refurbished version of the same old box."
Which is a fine solution if you think that the old box is a little too cramped, has some rusty nails in it that could easily hurt the kid, and so on - but it completely misses the point when the problem has been identified as the existence of designated boxes.

Now, r/Menslib presupposes the possibility of "positive" masculinity, so I can't really fault them for not engaging on that point (I've tried a few times before there but it's always the same pattern: a few upvotes and no comments).

So after having received no replies to a more comprehensive statement of my confusion on PPD I'm taking it here in hopes of getting some input:

[toxic masculinity] artificially narrows acceptably "masculine" behaviors and inflicts social punishment for men who step out of line.

If the set of acceptably masculine behaviors can be "artificially narrowed", do you think it has some kind of "natural" state? Are there any behaviors that are not included as acceptably masculine in that set in its natural state? If yes, what/how/why? If no, what does "masculinity" mean to you then?

(I'd be grateful for any bluepill perspectives I can get on these points.)

edit: Anyone? I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around what the point of masculinity is and if such a thing as non-exclusive "positive" masculinity is even possible. If you support gender roles (which the vast majority of bluepillers, people on r/MensLib etc. seem to do) you have to have some answer to that, don't you? Then why are the only explanations I ever get (if I get any) coming from essentialists?

I'm trying to understand what is gained by gendering certain traits as "masculine" and how that can be done in a non-restrictive way.

Do you end up with a framework in which every type of behavior can be considered "masculine" if only someone claims it as that? With a framework in which some behaviors are considered "masculine" and everything else is neither considered masculine nor antithetical to masculinity? Or with one in which there are behaviors that are "masculine" as well as behaviors that are considered directly opposed and detrimental to one's masculinity?
Is it possible to have a concept of masculinity that does not include every behavior but also doesn't develop the normative power to restrict the behavior of men?