That doesn't answer the question: do cultural norms of beauty conflict with the evo-psych view of the primacy of men's physical strength in attractiveness?
As noted by another commenter, we're "social" animals. So consider "strength" in the context of the social dynamics of the mating group.
That is, in some groups, literal physical strength is going to have benefits, and be sought after because of how it can be physically applied. In other groups, the aesthetic of being physically strong brings along social standing, which is attractive for its own reasons. Etc.
The point being, cultural norms of beauty, whatever they are, correlate to the other desirable traits and outcomes (money, power, safety, stability, etc) that humans want, in that context.
Okay, I guess I need to reframe this in multiple ways: Evo-psych (actually called "evolutionary psychology") does NOT view men's physical strength as primary in attractiveness. Lifting big things is not number one hotness. Other things matter more to mate selection than muscles.
People who call evolutionary psychology "evo-psych," well, that's a dog whistle of its own.
