You may have not realised this but pockets are sexist! In fact the history of pockets show that the use -or perhaps lack- of pockets are a direct reflection of the patriarchal mindset.
Up until the 17th century, pockets were pretty useless for women because they were buried so deep under clothing that access to them was basically impossible. And in the 17th century pockets are sexist because men had them on their pants, and when women needed money they would get it from the men they were with.
In the 18th century women used pouches- hip purses- to hold their belongings but in the 19th century when slimmer dresses came into fashion, these small bags had to go as well.
Instead 19th century women used small handbags to hold their belongings but if you had a larger bag this would mean you had a lower standing in the society because this meant you had to work outside. And at a time when a women’s standing in social hierarchy depended on her being a wife and a mother, having to work outside was frowned upon because it showed that her husband could not support her enough.
When world wars came, women had to take men’s works as their own because all the men had gone to war. The new fashion for utilitarian women needed to have pockets because women started wearing “men’s clothes” with pockets on them. But when the men came back from war and women were not wanted in the workforce anymore, they started dressing more “feminine” as to say, more pleasing to the eyes of men.
More form fitting pants showcased the silhouette of a woman’s body and pockets got in the way of that. Since then the war between skinny pants with no pockets on them and more comfortable larger pants have been going on. But still pants with larger pockets are labeled or derived from men’s pants, such as the “boyfriend jeans“.
The reason why pockets are sexist is seen all through history and sadly continues on to the 21st century. While women today have more or less similar occupations as men, they still do not have the same useful fashion as them.