If all jobs that aren't strength-related are shared 50/50 between men and women, and the jobs that are strength-related are predominately men, that would mean that there are more men in the workforce than women.

If that's the case, then that would mean that there are more unemployed women than unemployed men, and so the average man would earn more than the average woman (since there would be a larger number of women whose earnings would be zero).

On the other hand, if we assume that there are equal numbers of men and women in the workforce (for example, in a world where men and women are equally likely to be stay-at-home parents, etc.), that would mean that the there would be a greater number of women than men in some of the jobs that don't require physical strength. Whether or not men are better off would depend on how much those jobs pay compared to strength-related jobs.

Also, if jobs are given based solely on talent and salaries are determined based solely on productivity, I'm not sure that we can assume that non-strength-related jobs would be 50/50, or that average pay would be the same between men and women in those jobs, since we may find that men or women could be more skillful or more productive on average in some jobs. Saying that all other jobs would be 50/50 assumes that men and women are completely equal on average in all jobs except for strength-related jobs, where men have the advantage.

(I'm not opposed to the idea that men and women, on average, may do better at or have a preference for certain jobs than others. What I find important is decreasing real or perceived barriers for men and women to enter fields dominated by the other gender, and for female-dominated and male-dominated fields to be more equally valued in society (for example, teachers (a female-dominated profession) are incredibly important to society, yet aren't paid very well).)