Yes, this. I was just thinking about all this the other day. And if I may, I think understanding why masculinity feels like a weird idealized cage is very important to understanding how to take true ownership of it.
People struggle with understanding what masculinity is because of what you said: They confuse masculinity with violence. Namely, they confuse the condition of "being a man" with the condition of "being a warrior."
A man is many things. He's a father, a son, a brother, a best friend, a lover, a thinker, a doer, and a dreamer. He can be goofy and serious, passionate and bored, courageous and cowardly. He can live a quiet life and an adventurous one. But most importantly, he can change how he expresses himself whenever he pleases.
A warrior can't do these things.
War is a theater that asks people "Are you a soldier, or are you a civilian?" You can determine this by looking at people's behavior: Who is fighting, and who is running/hiding/trying to stay safe?
While someone can do a mix of these things, there's a very clear line between "warrior" and "not warrior" when it comes to who gets sent to the battlefields. Warriors are trained to fight. Warriors are conditioned with a specific mindset. Warriors have certain skills, know certain protocols, and operate within a specific environment. Most of all, warriors react to situations in very strict, impersonal, and calculated ways. There's no room for personal expression, there's no place for unconventional ideas, and there's absolutely no getting overwhelmed with emotion. You respond with your training so you and your comrades don't die. That's it.
Now the question is: Why did we conflate our definition of "being a man" with the definition of "being at war"? Personally, I think the World Wars had something to do with it.
Before the Wars, a man was a man because he was a gentleman: He was civil and good-mannered. He knew how to exercise his education. He was articulate, expressive, social, well-behaved, and interested in human cooperation. This is what made him masculine as opposed to his unmanly opposite—an oaf. (Think of the cultured and successful Dr. Jekyll and the slovenly and impulsive Mr. Hyde.)
But then the Wars came. Multiple generations of men went to the battlefield and experienced manhood as the condition of being a soldier. When the Wars ended, they brought this wartime experience of manhood back to the civilian world, passing it down to their children and grandchildren as a narrative of "what a man is and does."
Now we have a problem where we feel like we have to live in conflict-filled environments in order to feel like we're men. The wartime definition of masculinity is beholden to the presence of war. Without it, it's not possible for us to meet the standard that was handed down to us. It feels both unobtainable AND caging because it was created in an environment that no longer exists, and in ones famous for destroying the human spirit.
The men who went through the World Wars sacrificed being men so they could be warriors. They had to give up their ability to holistically express themselves and direct their own self-development in order to become the assets they needed to be. They didn't come back as whole people.
We know "being a man" is different from "being a warrior" because masculinity can exist where war can't: In gentle times of peace, beauty, love, and tranquility. If you don't feel comfortable being gentle, peaceful, beautiful, loving, and/or tranquil because you feel "less of a man" for it, then you have received this wound. It's time to heal it.