Setting aside the sexual differences, I do wish Strength mattered more in games. With D&D 5e being a huge offender in this.
The system I've been working on ties strength directly to movement in a variety of ways.
First is a fairly stringent encumbrance system where the equivalent of 5e's Strength 8 can only carry 40 lb. without being slowed (light armor, a melee weapon and standard adventurer's kit is about 50 lb. for comparison).
Likewise, size matters a small creature has only half the carrying capacity of a human of the same strength and human has only half the carrying capacity of an "oversized" creature (a category I included between medium and large for PCs just barely able to fit into the space of a medium creature... they get double the carry capacity, but allies can't move freely through their spaces and they suffer some penalties if flanked by blocking terrain).
Next it figures into your climb, jump and swim speeds (you only need to make checks if you're pushing through terrains you can't handle). A "Strength 8" character couldn't climb difficult terrain without a check. A "Strength 14" one could make slow progress up even challenging terrain without a check (and a "Strength 18" one could cross 10' of difficult climbing terrain without a check).
Finally, medium and heavy armor imposes additional penalties without hitting strength thresholds (equivalent to Str 12 for medium and 16 for heavy) and the heavier armors don't cap your Dex either so you're always best off using the heaviest armor you can manage.
The net result is that even agility-focused warriors tend to have a minimum equivalent of Strength 12 (in system they can carry 80 lb. without being slowed, handle difficult climbing/jumping/swimming terrain without checks needed and have no extra penalties for medium armor). The only ones I've seen build with an equivalent of Strength 8 are the wizard equivalent spellcasters who wear no armor at all and aren't proficient with much more than daggers, clubs and staves for fighting.