To rephrase what an earlier poster (modded to 0 for whatever reason) said, SMS is used because secure alternatives are viewed as unworkable by both ends of the transaction chain. I would much prefer to use a private key, either software or hardware (Yubikey-like) for verification, but most institutions don't make that option available for mere raggedy-assed-masses customers. They don't make it available because most of their users won't want to (or can't) use it. Whether secure enough of not, SMS is easy and ubiquitous and the best-we-can-do approach is to try to make it as secure as possible given all the known limitations.
While it makes me cringe to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we don't fight security issues with the tools we wish we had, we fight with the tools we have. In this case, "have" means "realistically available."
You cannot ‘solve’ a problem that is only identifiable through statistics (there are more male programmers than female) or anecdotes (my career was held back by sexist men in management). If hard facts can be documented of bias in hiring practices, or in how promotions are made, or how supervisors do their jobs, then you can identify problems that can be fixed. I believe this sort of thing is being done all over the US by companies that want to be gender-neutral, or at least don’t want to leave themselves open to clearly-supported lawsuits.
The only ‘solution’ to a statistics-defined problem is the solution-du-jour of quotas. If the population has X% of some identifiable sub-population (female, black, smokers, whatever), then the company will have X% of people of that sub-population in every job. This is not a solution, this is a hack on a major scale. It solves nothing, and arguably makes everything worse.
There is absolutely no place for sexism of any kind, male-on-female or female-on-male, in our society. However, sexism is not fixed by quotas.
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.