The reverse is not so true though.
I don’t think this would work out as well from an evolutionary standpoint, if you believe that men are driven to have as many children as possible, a woman can only have one man’s child at a time. A man can get multiple women pregnant.
Polyandry also objectifies women? how?
> That's polyandry,
polygamy is a superset of polyandry per dictionary. Your original comment was about polygamy.
In terms of polyandry, I meant the non-sex specific, general defects still hold. Certainly, polyandry specifically inflicts a defective relationship on the males, but given the asymmetrical responsibilities between the sexes, the result would likewise be detrimental to women. (Of course, where the latter point is concerned, it is the same with polygyny vis-a-vis men. It's not as if a man is honoring his nature by being a polygamist. It is to his detriment as well.)
While monogamous marriages can be defective in practice, they are not so in principle. Polygamous marriages, on the other hand, impose these defects in principle.
There may be a similarity here with hookup culture, that is, a polygamous culture seems to likewise, though perhaps to a lesser degree, encourage men to view women as mere instruments of sexual gratification. Harvey Weinstein is in essence not some exception, but the poster child for our age.
Far from denigrating women as has been falsely claimed by some, the Christian (specifically Catholic) defense of insoluble, monogamous marriages was one of many ways in which woman was saved from the disordered predations common in human societies throughout history.
(P.S. A relatively recent philosophical tract worth reading is the late Karol Wojtyla's "Love and Responsibility".)