Down around post 826 or so (of this very well moderated thread) we get into the fascinating topic of why women’s dresses, etc don’t have pockets.
My wife has made the same complaint, and so she loves those Disneyland dresses, which often have pockets.
So, why so few pockets?
As part of the tangent in the earlier thread, @BippityBoppityBoo said:
If women only ever chose functional clothes with pockets regardless of style preference, all women’s clothes would have pockets. That’s not what women choose to do. I’m not disparaging women’s choices. Women in society are rewarded for looking stylish so they want stylish clothes. Baggy pocketed clothes aren’t stylish and would be less stylish with key and cell phone lumps. So women don’t generally choose them and designers don’t generally make them. Designers could offer clothes both with and without pockets but then they would be making twice as many variants for the same number of sales. They know they are better off making two differently styled garments neither offering pockets to attract more attention and sales. Worse yet (from the designers’ perspective) if the pocketed versions became popular with unfashionable people, they would be attracting the buyers they least want - those focused on practicality who probably aren’t willing to pay the most and turning off buyers who are fashionably inclined and more influential on their peers…
Designers understandably want their clothes to look good and attract attention first. The no-pockets versions will do that better so that’s what they offer.
No one buys scrubs for style and I’m glad if practicality has won out there.
90% of the clothes I buy would be fine with pockets. I’m no Kim Kardashian and don’t wear bodycon clothes. Unfortunately, 90% of the clothes available to buy have no pockets or only have vestigial pockets.
On one of the Project runway seasons, Michael Kors told a designer that women don’t want pockets because it makes their hips look bigger. I think is is an idiot for that opinion.
I believe in one of the Star Trek novels, Scotty complains that their uniforms don’t have pockets.
During the search for the following, I received a LARGE number of hits “how to add pockets to a dress”:
so - breast pockets?
My wife needed a new dress for our oldest son’s wedding. It is hard to express how happy/surprised she was to find a floor length dress with pockets (well, at least one - not sure of the details).
Nor how annoyed she was/is when she selected a dress for our middle son’s wedding where there were none on offer with pockets.
Designers create demand and style - there is no reason they couldn’t figure out how to incorporate pockets into almost all of their designs. If sleekness and smooth lines are important to a particular woman, she can just not put anything into the pocket.
Great! All we have to do is get half the human race to be sensible and consistent about this. 
I’m doing my part, wearing a dress with pockets right now. Old Navy, y’all!
First we would have to be offered them. I think it is a “if you build it, they will come” quandary. We need some decades of stylish affordable clothes incorporating pockets being offered to ever so gently tweak the system’s expectations so designers and manufacturers can learn that “hey, if I do it right, they will buy it”. They haven’t been sufficiently motivated yet because we women keep giving in and settling for pocketless less functional clothes.
How about for several decades we allow functional pockets in men’s clothing only if there is an offsetting item offered for women in the same price range? If men can go to a store (or site) and chose from 40 pairs of pants with functional pockets, then said retailer must offer 40 pairs for women (dresses could serve also. It’s actually easier to incorporate pockets into a dress than into pants). Kind of like carbon offsets.
Let men try to walk and work in our pants for awhile and see if that changes the landscape.
Now, verging off into the political: I reject that it is my job as a women to look stylish for the male audience. I think men should relieve the women in their life from that expectation and instead enjoy being in the presence of women who enjoy their clothes for their own reasons. Stop saying “functional-baggy, baggy-unattractive”, “pockets ruin the line and look of that outfit”. Controlling women’s choices that way is attempting to have power over-it’s patriarchy. The industry’s offering mostly only non-functionally pocketed clothes is only slightly more subtle.I have never thought, much less said, “the pockets on that blazer ruin it’s line, therefore he’s unattractive”. Somehow designers and makers find a way to put at least 4 pockets in every pair of mens pants without “ruining the lines”. It can be done for women but the system (dominated by males) is unmotivated to do so and women haven’t organized and banded together in solidarity to demand it yet. I have hopes but I am getting tired of pushing the same boulder up the hill.
In 1972 I wore dress slacks (that I had sown, you can bet your bippy they had good pockets) under my gown to graduate from a Methodist women’s college near St. Louis. TPTB threatened to withhold my diploma if I wore pants instead of a dress. I wore them and I still got my diploma. You know who stood in solidarity with me, saying they would refuse to accept their diplomas if I was denied mine? The first 8 Black students matriculated stood beside me and the college reconsidered, because the college wanted the optics of being desegregated more than they wanted to browbeat me into submission. The no pants rule was forever by the wayside and 150 years of tradition of that particular subjugation along with it.
Never doubt that appearance expectations and rules are meant to keep us in our place.
I would like to visit your pants farm. 
(I really really really do NOT want to be snarky here, but somehow much of what I say ends up being taken wrong.)
I think that BippityBoppityBoo has nailed the solution here: Women need to speak up. If people would ask their salesperson, “Do you have anything with pockets?” enough, I am confident that the message will get back to the designers. Eventually.
I took some dresses I liked to a tailor and had pockets added! The nice thing was that we measured my large hands and my large phone and made sure they fit. Woohoo!
I honestly would be fine if dresses didn’t have pockets *- as long as I could easily get pants with usable pockets and belt loops that fit an actual belt. I hardly ever need pockets in situations when I’m wearing a dress - but since I couldn’t wear jeans or anything similar to work, I had to walk around with my phone and my keys in my hand while the men had their hands free.
* the dress I wore to my daughter’s wedding did have pockets although I didn’t know that when I ordered it. Apparently it wasn’t seen as important enough to mention in the description
Sometimes when I’m working outside, I hang one of my work gloves on a belt loop by its velcro adjustment strap. Ta da! Pocket.
It has gotten unreasonable to sew garments at home (for all but the most special applications like wedding or evening gowns). All the constituent parts have gotten outrageously expensive and you can’t sew an item of clothing for less than something purchased, even without putting a value on your time and expertise or factoring in the cost of a sewing machine and maintainence. A pattern is $15, a spool of thread $4, a zipper is $6, fabric yardage is astronomical when I can buy a pair of denim shorts from Costco for $15 dollars. It just doesn’t pay to make your own, the aggravations of utility and pockets aside.
This seems like a clear market failure, to me. Even if most women don’t choose garments with pockets (let’s accept that for the sake of argument), it’s clear that there’s a decent-sized minority, at least, who would. And if there were one clothing company that made women’s clothes with pockets, then all of that minority would buy from that company. How high is the fraction who want pockets? 10%? Even that would be a huge niche for any one company to occupy.
I suspect that what’s happening here is that, every so often, some middling person at some clothing company (likely herself a woman) suggests this, and the male CEO dismisses her and mansplains that all women care about is looking good for their menfolk, and women don’t need pockets, because they have men to take care of all of that serious business for them.
If what I’m wearing (because that’s what I’ve been able to buy) doesn’t have pockets, I’ve been known to tuck a Kleenex up my sleeve. Or I tuck a door key or a chapstick in my bra for lack of anywhere else. If you don’t want to see me reach into my shirt, don’t look.
BTW, my wife informs me that as of a couple of years ago, it is becoming harder and harder to find men’s shirts with pockets. So my genuine sympathy has grown into empathy. 
Thank you for the empathy.
Your pants still have pockets though, I bet. Albeit it is hard to comfortably keep a full-size pen or pencil in a pants pocket.
That’s the way it seems to me as well. My sister’s kid came out as non-binary two years ago, and last summer they were absolutely reveling in their Carhartt work pants with a vast array of functional pocketry, in contrast with the women’s clothing they had worn prior to coming out. Hmm. Spellcheck doesn’t think ‘pocketry’ is a word. Spellcheck can go hang. Anyways, I made this precise argument about women’s apparel manufacturers. If any reasonable portion of women would preferentially buy jeans with pockets over jeans without, then any jean brand could gobble up that entire share of the market at will. That this hasn’t happened is due to either 1) women don’t actually want pockets, in spite of saying they do, or 2) garment makers are idiots. I’m going with option 2.