Every example you've listed has to do with subverting the free market though legislation. You didn't list other subversive forces on the market, but there's als

Every example you've listed has to do with subverting the free market though legislation. You didn't list other subversive forces on the market, but there's also a pseudo-regulation through non-governmental force (death threats, other threats), and boycotting / consumer groups (large groups of consumers form a sort of monopsony, refusing to purchase from corporations without a given policy). If any of these three hold in the case of the market for women's pants pocket size, please let me know. In that case I would agree there is sexism in that market, and sign petitions etc to stop the market subversion. Examples of evidence: * A law on the books requiring ladies pants pockets to be under a certain size. (If such a law does exist, I've just verified Amazon is violating it btw) * A police report that (for example) a Macy's executive has been threatened over the pocket size of the pants they stocked at a store. * The website of a large consumer group, officially boycotting a retailer due to their women's pants pocket policy. If such evidence doesn't exist, then you should strongly consider the null hypothesis: that the overwhelming force governing the size of women's pants pockets is Adam Smith's invisible hand. This is the default assumption when looking at markets because covert coercion on such a vast scale (literally all retailers) would require considerable organizational effort, and would consume considerable cost to maintain. We're talking government scale action, sustained over hundreds of years (see OP's story), with no leaks. All to keep pocket sizes small. That's simply not plausible. Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen in those cases you mention above -- which is to say I think you could provide such evidence as I'm requesting for your examples -- I'm saying you can't do that here because OP's theory is a conspiracy theory.