And I think you're standing on completely shifting sand regarding "optimal" versus "toxic," as I demonstrated by dismantling your single example. I could go further than this: If you take off the completely arbitrary limiter of "spousal abuse to the point of death," and look instead at "spousal abuse," it is far more common to be instigated and generally perpetrated by women. We know this through statistics regarding domestic violence among lesbian couples, and crime statistics referring to non-reciprocated domestic violence among heterosexual couples. Beating your S.O. is largely a woman thing (Beating to death merely shows that men tend to have greater efficacy when it comes to domestic violence--if you ignore stabbings--but not greater proclivity for it). Yet you used it as your prime example of "masculinity" gone awry to the point of being..."divergent from optimal," I suppose you would call it.

And so it goes. As I said, it was your one example, and it's flawed to the point of being completely backwards from reality. Again. Last time it was declaring a failure of impulse control as intrinsically male, now you've misidentified the tendency toward hitting a romantic partner as somehow intrinsically male. Swing and miss in both cases. I'm afraid you're going to have to do the work of explaining, in a factual and justifiable way, each and every example you have of "toxic" (or "not optimal") masculinity. Both how it is intrinsically "masculine," and how it is its definite connection to maleness, that makes it specifically male toxicity.

Of course, by doing so, you're aping a college Women's Studies pursuit. You'd be arbitrarily declaring things intrinsically this and that, based on your say-so. Why you would want to do such a thing is beyond me.