On the surface I guess this is neat. But maybe instead of forcing dolls on girls and cars on boys we could do a bit better by, well, not being presumptuous.
That said, maybe this is a workaround to parents with gendered toy expectations? Or to encouraging STEM interests in girls who have already been socially indoctrinated into gender norms?
I don't think it will work at all.
It might well sell.
Fathers (cue the space references, I guess) and perhaps mothers, might think it's a great idea.
But it won't do what it says; encourage girls to code.
I think one important way to do that is to make coding itself less solitary, and this doesn't seem to do that particularly, despite the pictures of girls playing together.
Another is to make coding more powerful. Eg, Scratch is great for both boys and girls, being able to put simple stories, animations and games together with fairly little and simple code. But it quickly gets to the point where it's just too much detailed coding to make even fairly simple things happen, let alone complex projects where you're also fighting Scratch's limitations (no functions, seriously?). As one of my code-club students explained, "I understand how to do it, I just don't have the patience to"
Given the founder's background, I'm surprised they are not using an LLM, 'vibe coding' etc, as the basis for this. That might also justify the $200 price tag.
Girls, in fact most kids, don't necessarily want to code (that more often comes from the parents). A small slither get hooked on coding itself. But most just want to make things to share with their friends.
