Generally, a good read, but I disagree here. Polygamy actually flourished amount Native American tribes and was a humane way to care for the surplus of women which resulted from constant warfare and hunting accidents. The man did not do everything, not even close. His job was to hunt, fish, protect and provide. Once the game was harvested, the entire workload was turned over to the women. There was some division of labor. One wife might be skilled at meal preparation, another at processing and food preservation, a third at child care, another at making clothing or sewing hides, etc.
They were not completely without rights. Among the Sioux, the women owned the property and could divorce an abusive husband simply by setting his few personal belongings outside the teepee. Of course, they also forfeited his protection and the food he might bring home. But if they were good workers or otherwise desirable, another man would take them as his wives.
I'm not saying the system was perfect, not by any means. Just that it was more natural than the modern invention of feral males, female headed households and invented gay marriages.
A child, at least, had a decent opportunity to grow up useful in a polygamous society, much more so than the alternatives mentioned.
I think that this happened in many societies because of a paucity of men mainly because of war. You are also correct that a system of Patriarchy ran alongside a Matriarchal system. Duties were divided! Nowadays noticing that there are differences between the sexes in their abilities, capacity to endure different things and just in their general make-up is almost seen as heresy. To the left difference = inequality.
Mel
Your comment started reasonably, but then you made the author’s point...” Once the game was harvested, the entire workload was turned over to the women.”
Polygamy is the downfall of women. What you refer to, bringing widows into a man’s house, should be charity, not polygamy.