Suppose we have an object of mass $m$.
You stand on a skateboard and throw that object as hard as you can.
Suppose your arm can put out a maximum force of $F_\text{max}$.
When you push the object with your maximum force, its acceleration is $a = F_\text{max}/m$.
The position of the object as a function of time during this acceleration is the usual
$$x = \frac{1}{2} a t^2 \, .$$
Your arm has only a certain length $L$ so you can only apply this force and get the object to experience that acceleration over a distance $L$.
Therefore, the maximum time over which you can push the object is
$$t = \sqrt{2L / a} \, .$$
The final momentum of the bowling ball is therefore
$$p = F_\text{max} t = F_\text{max} \sqrt{\frac{2L}{a}} = \sqrt{2 L F_\text{max} m} \, . $$
So you see, the amount of momentum you can impart to an object goes proportional with the square root of that object's mass, the force you can exert, and the length of your arm.
Newton's action-reaction law says that the force exerted by you on the ball is equal to the force exerted by the ball on you.
Note, of course, that these forces are exerted over equal amounts of time, so the thing that's really equal in the end is the momentum imparted onto you and the ball (in opposite directions).
Since we see that the momentum you can impart on the ball increases with increasing ball mass, then the momentum exerted on you also increases with increasing ball mass.
Intuitively, this is all just saying that when you throw a golf ball, it's so light that it leaves your hand before it's had a chance to push back on you very much.
The way we are all taught Newton's Laws (by reciting them like mantras as children) is unfortunate because the traditional wording is misleading in many ways.
A big problem (though not the only one) with the traditional wording of both Newton's second and third laws is that they incorrectly suggest cause and effect (and hence imply a chain of events, as you put it).
Newton's second law, for example, suggests that a force 'causes' an acceleration, implying it happens first. It doesn't. The force and the acceleration occur jointly and concurrently, despite the persistent misconception and stubborn illusion of a temporal sequence.
But let's not get distracted with the second law right now, because you are understandably perplexed by the third ...
Again, the wording of the third law suggests that an 'action' happens first and then it 'causes' a 'reaction'. If this were literally true, you'd have every right to cry infinite regress!
The truth is, the forces occur jointly and simultaneously, and are not the causes of each other. If you want a better way to think about it, you can hardly do better than the way Newton himself came up with the third law. He argued for it as follows:
Suppose you had a system of two objects interacting with each other, with no external forces acting on the system. Then you should be able to consider that system as a 'whole' if you want to, and from that perspective the system as a whole must not accelerate as it has no net force acting on it. But this can only be the case if the two objects making up the system have equal and opposite forces between them (i.e. all internal forces of the system must cancel out).
Do you see how this argument does not involve any 'causal sequence' or 'chain' of forces? It is just an observation about what must be the case in order for Newton's force-based scheme to work consistently.
Not convinced? Let me try an analogy. You and your friend each have a certain amount of money. You buy something from your friend. Your balance goes down and your friend's goes up. Was there a time-delayed causal sequence here? Nope. Your balance decreased concurrently (as you handed over the money) as your friend's balance increased. Looking at the system as a whole, we know that since no money flowed into or out of the system during the transaction, the net balance must be zero. Every payment entails a receipt and every receipt entails a payment, but, despite the illusion, there is no sequence (much less a perpetual one!).
Note: You could also translate this argument into the language of momentum conservation, but I have tried to answer the question in the same language in which you phrased it.
UPDATE: The 'infinite regress' problem highlighted here is not the only confusion that arises when we use the suggestive language of 'action' and 'reaction'. I've identified two other problems this language causes along with my proposed solution here.
Best Answer
No, that's not right, for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, your Fmuscle is a force that you are exerting on other objects. That force doesn't count with regard to what happens to you. Think of it this way: Can you lift yourself by your own bootstraps? (That's a dated term nowadays. Can you lift yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoelaces?) The answer is no. That isn't an external force, and neither is your Fmuscle.
Secondly, you haven't drawn all of the forces you are exerting on other objects and hence that other objects are exerting on you. Always find all of the forces when you are drawing a free body diagram!
You won't be able to push the box if you are standing on ice and the box is not. Your feet will slip out from under you. This is the external force you are missing. You are using your leg muscles to push against the ground via your feet. This force has both downward and backward components. The reaction to this is that the ground pushes you up and forward. The upward force counters gravity (another force that you missed). It's the forward force that is crucial in enabling you to push the box.