I don't think that at all.
The overwhelming majority of D&D customers remain men, and they want to play fast and nimble characters too. Compare action heroes of today: the Stathem and Damons are much less obvious Strength builds than the Neggerneggers and Lundgrens of yesteryear. Also cue asian influences.
Bringing up gender only risks derailing the discussion entirely, and draws focus away from the core issue here.
---
So, let's instead posit the question:
Does the fantasy genre need Strength as paramount fighting ability?
I would say yes, it does.
Otherwise combat tends to become much more modern in that distance and cover and kiting tactics become viable methods, which completely overshadows the "Conan fighting style" where you manly wade into a horde of orcs, swatting aside their cowardly arrows, and then cleave them three at a time.
I would argue the basic rules engine of D&D is geared towards melee combat, with low movement rates and short spell ranges and a massive focus on melee monsters.
---
In 5th edition, with almost no checks on ranged fire, the tactic to stay at a distance and shoot everything dead simply becomes too good, too easy.
The only way to solve this is to ensure there is a definite cost to the quality of "range". Having range (more than 30 ft anyway, since most monsters can close 30 ft and still unload its best attacks) needs to carry significant consequences, such as lower damage, frailer builds and/or a susceptibility to being "caught" in melee.
Begin by removing the stupendous +2 bonus to ranged from Archery Fighting Style. Crucially; ban, remove or nerf the two feats Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert.
That at least gets rid of the most obvious excesses. Then I'd recommend playtesting to see if your players still pick ranged combatants, and thus, if further nerfs are needed.
Remember, 3rd edition was a huge success. And it had no less than eleven (11) checks and limitations on archers that 5E made the huge mistake of removing.
I get tired of comparing 3rd edition to 5th edition. To the day, I've seen too many people doing it. Remember 3rd edition, where the martial characters were a drag, and someone with a fighter is worse than an invocation from a non-optimized wizard? Yes, 3rd edition was a success, but not because the restriction of ranged combat (in fact, there isn't any real restriction to ranged
spell combat, but yay! restrict the fighters! Nerf them! They use weapons instead of spells!). But I don't want to get involved in an Editions War. I'm a bit tired of it. I really never liked 3rd edition, to the point to hate it (because fighters always were my favourite class), and I've always prefered AD&D until the upcoming of 5th Edition.
5th edition is a huge success to this date. Is a really great edition, although it has its flaws. And ranged combat isn't the real deal once you take account of several
actual issues with it:
1) Ammunition. Yes, you
can take acount of ammunition, and it's really easy: put coins in a small bowl. That's your ammunition.
2) Closed spaces, like dungeons, forests etc., which favour melee combat, ambushes and surprise. YOu don't need a lot of stealth to be still, and most monsters are engaged in a small area. As a DM, it's very difficult to make ranged goblins effective at all, if they haven't cover or the best ground available. And the Ancient's paladin in my group has a Jump ring, that awesomely increases its speed and reach.
3) In flat grounds, cavalry. A barely efficient 3rd level fighter (like my own character) with a lance and a shield can attack for 1d12+6 damage, having a shield, knocking someone prone and move up to 120 feet in a single round. The battlemaster crossbowmen that I have can't use effectively its action surge, and isn't at all a great melee fighter.
4) COVER. The only way to get rid of this effective defense is grabbing the Sharpshooter, which is awesome, but negates the Crossbow Master feat in the early levels, and defensively isn't such a great option: you don't benefit from shields at all, and any ambush will hurt you. Badly.
5) Prone condition. Disadvantage on melee, but advantage on range. If you are surrounded by archers, you move prone, and you give disadvantage to the attacks. You move slowly, yes, but you arent nearly as pincushioned as you might be.
6) Even with those feats acquired, presumably at 6th level by a fighter, you don't deal as much damage as a melee character. And this is only the DPR argument. And you haven't as much defense either. You must rely on cover also.
7) Nerfing Ranged Weapon Combat isn't an option. This is the same as nerfing martial classes althogether: nerfing great ranged options, such as the longbowmen with their 300 feet range, is giving ranged combat to the casters in a silver plate.
I have a Fighter character. A human knight (battlemaster), specifically. And I've not suffered even once the difference with my Dextrous, highly-optimizer partner. Yes, he is fast, but mostly i found myself doing more damage, resisting combat better, and I've no use for stealth. If I don't want to fight, I just take away my armor and move as silently as I could (basically, need a good roll or the
Pass Without Trace of my shadow monk friend).
My dex-companions are stupidly constrained by giant spider webs, grapples, worgs and warhorses. I've maintained a whole caravel afloat by grappling the main sail with my big arms! At level 3! And I've saved my companions from drowning, from suffocating when we got caught by smoke underground. And I've been profanating tombs with my shovel, breaking animated statues with my hammer, bended iron bars from a sewer, lifted heavy weights, etc. Stealth don't cover any of it. Acrobatics neither. Dex saves are nearly nonexistant on the first 10 levels. I've tried it. I've playtested it. The so-called god-stat is nearly useless in many, many situations. Although its super useful in others.
I feel a lot more powerful than most of my companions as I got a better action economy and usefulness with my Shield master feat. I've been knocking down enemies so my dex-fighter companion could deal damage tooo, but I've been dealing more damage than him, an we got mostly the same stats (18 on our weapon stats). I've being grappling spellcasters, while the tabaxi monk was destroyed by them (guiding bolt is an awfully effective spell, and guess what, it has a Spell Attack not a Dex save.), so AC is as effective as the Dex save against spells, if not outright better (I've counted 41 spells that trigger an attack, without counting invocations or animations of any kind, that obviously depend on attacks).
"
