Largely yes (and completely yes for many of the other categories). I really don't think you read what I write, though! I already acknowledged that the violence-enforced dominance hierarchy system as a whole is the 500 lb gorilla. You then proceeded to write a whole answer almost entirely arguing what I had already granted.

(I think you too eagerly identify a component of a problem and fail to identify as part of the issue rather than the whole thing, but even if one only adds up all the parts, it's still absolutely enormous. I also think you ascribe to dominance some things which are better ascribed to seeking unity, but this still doesn't alter the take-home message.)

However, I don't view the "Man Box" in modern Western countries as synonymous with all of that. This is a particular expression of social norms that is an issue now. Weepy late-Renaissance men were establishing colonialism. Women were presumed to be the final authority in the household and with finances in ancient Egypt, despite Egypt being powerfully hierarchically organized and keeping slaves and so on. Romans weren't shy about homosexuality, and conquered and brutalized many of their neighbors. The Scythians had large numbers of female warriors--fighting wasn't exclusively manly--and engaged in many aggressive wars of conquest.

The "Man Box" is an idea of how hegemonic masculinity is expressed in Westernize culture now. But Western culture has come up with a lot of other ways to constrain most of the very worst of the abuses (laws, separation of powers, etc.). I don't think the Equimundo study is terribly useful in helping us understand what is going on in Afghanistan, for instance, even if aggressively violent conceptions of masculinity play a role there, too.