Not it does not. Monogamy has always been the universal norm for the average household. While societies have allowed or tolerated the rich and powerful to amass women like they amass other forms of wealth and luxury, it is not the standard because of the biological reality that there are simply not enough women for every many to have multiple wives.
The historical reality is that polygamous societies are violent because in order for some men to have multiple wives means that other men must do without. This creates social friction that does violence towards young men who are competition to older more powerful men and towards young women who are turned into chattel and sold to these older men. There is also violence between the wives and violence between or toward the half siblings.
Such societies are made crippled, deformed and unstable by the practice of polygamy.
I also dispute yoour generalization: The historical reality is that polygamous societies are violent because in order for some men to have multiple wives means that other men must do without.
Many are, others are not. Among many Native American tribes, it was the norm and not the exception. There was a surplus of women which resulted partly from the higher death rate among men due to wars, but also due to occupational hazards such as hunting.
The Mandan, for instance, were a polygamous society and warred very little. Polygamy afforded them a number of advantages beyond taking care of surplus women, of which there really weren't that many. Wives could specialize. One might excel at food preparation, another at child rearing, a third at turning hides into clothing or shelter.
I'm not really interested in reopening that Pandora's box save for selected historical observation. But that is exactly what the gay mafia has done.