My 2 cents..
His article is too long and seemingly unworthy of the time as the beginning itself is flawed.

A historical explanation of male violence does not eschew biological factors, but it minimizes them and assumes that men and woman are psychologically similar

why should it minimize the biological factors right away? and more importantly whats the basis for the assumption of psychological similarity? That goes completely against common-sense and experience. This writer setting us up for more of the “blank slate” kind of stuff in the Nature vs Nurture debate.

In hunter-gatherer societies, this strength differential doesn’t allow men to fully dominate women, because they depend on the food that women gather

True.. but lets not forget that the psychology of humans is forged over the millions of years spent by hominids in the african environment. The 10K years spent in agriculture-based civilization is just a teeny bit in terms of psychological development.

The economic dependency allows men to mistreat women, to philander, and to take over labor markets and political institutions. Once men have absolute power, they are reluctant to give it up. It took two world wars and a post-industrial economy for women to obtain basic opportunities and rights.
This historical story can help to explain why men are more violent than women. The men who hold power will fight to keep it, and men who find themselves without economic resources feel entitled to acquire things by force if they see no other way

What?? This is turning out to be a “oppression of woman” narrative. bullshit historical narrative. Men were violent even before civilization, and the violence is coming down over time due to great civilizations innovations such as trade, monopoly on violence by state, democracy. Steven Pinker has written an elaborate book on it.. ‘the better angels of our nature’. For the record, lets not forget that violence is an essential part of all animals.. and it is what sustained both men and women in its earliest times..for e.g the ability to hunt animals and get protein. Concepts of sexual dimorphism is well understood in evolutionary biology, and male or female usage of physical strength to achieve its goals is best understood there. The cultural narrative can only be layered on top of that. “Taking over labour markets or political institutions” has nothing to do with women’s economic dependency. Nature is wild and dangerous, and the effort to tame nature was a massive physical undertaking best suited to men’s physical capabilities and came at great costs to individuals involved.. a concept called ‘male disposability’ well explained by Dr Warren Farrell. Once modernity was achieved and soft-jobs (a.k.a tertiary sector of economy) was created, it has opened up all kinds of possibilities for women.

astro.nj,
I read this piece more as an argument against biological determinism. I don’t see it promoting the blank slate or calling evolution irrelevant. I think it is saying that biological explanations for modern behavior are overvalued today and, as he states in the opening para, “evolutionary explanations of behavior are often worse than competing historical explanations … There are simpler historical explanations of male violence, and understanding these is important for coping with the problem.” Notice the word “often”.
Don’t you agree that to posit a historical explanation (rightly or wrongly) is to “minimize” the biological explanation? Prinz then adds that a historical explanation “assumes that men and woman are psychologically similar.” I think you are interpreting “similar” to mean “same”. Of course men and women are psychologically similar. I can’t imagine females of another species with whom I have more of my psychology in common. 🙂 Rather than explain the leading behavioral differences visible today (as with violence) mainly through biological dissimilarities (which surely exist but it’s not clear where the lines are), Prinz is proposing explanations that he considers simpler and no less plausible.
It’s not evident to me what the “realities of human nature” are. Every idea of “realities” itself depends on the observer’s theoretical and metaphysical framework. Further, cause and effect are rather convoluted in human affairs. Many theories have tried to explain what their proponents take to be the “realities of human nature” — and Cronin’s is yet another one. None can explain it all. Evolutionary explanations often degenerate into Darwinian storytelling, just as exclusively historical/cultural explanations can have shortcomings. Prinz is calling for “biocultural” explanations and adds in the comments, “yes [biology] contributes to violence, but, for us, culture may have an even greater impact.” This essay isn’t going to settle the debate for sure, but I feel you have drawn some overhasty conclusions from it.

Here is another interesting take on why human males are more violent from Lloyd deMause. This is a chapter from his book “The Origins of War in Child Abuse” which is online.