That's like saying everyone loves Comcast because everyone in my area has them. They are the only provider, so maybe sales numbers isn't the best metric to determine consumer desire in all cases.
Within recent years this argument becomes a bit less viable as there are so many ways to purchase clothing and near infinite options, but it then becomes about brand reputation and quality. How many vendors have the capability to meet consumer demand with a high quality, available product. And how easy is it to get funding for this business when, as you say, consumers don't APPEAR to want it?
So this argument feels lazy imo. I don't think it's a conspiracy insofar there is a cabal refusing to put pockets in their clothing for some nefarious reason. But that doesn't mean that the consumers are being listened to, and brands aren't responsible for the lack of available pocket space in women's clothing.
Your argument implies that women are given the option between many nearly identical pairs of pants, some with large pockets and some with small pockets. Instead they're presented with dozens of pants with only small pockets. Given the choice between pants with small pockets or no pants, they buy pants with small pockets.
Men usually get a small corner somewhere. Also, there is online shopping with literally thousands of stores to choose from and you are suggesting none of these offers pants with larger pockets?
Probably, she don't care enough about pockets to really search for it?
The GP comment is actually a string of internet clichés: (1) "it's not some conspiracy", (2) "if they could sell" (3) "if you think [...] you should". That plus the confrontational edge makes it a flamewar comment. We're trying to avoid those here.
Btw, one key thing to look for is whether a comment engages anything specific in an article, or is just using it to make a generic point. The latter is always a bad sign in HN threads.
You only do that on certain topics.