I still think the whole thing was her idea in the first place. "I'd only marry you if you save all the babies in Africa!" "Umm... Okay!"

Maybe my memory is failing me here, but didn't this woman have to pass some sort of official test before Gates would marry her? I seem to recall that having been bruited about (not as a rumour, as something reported quite factually in the media--I don't recall denial of the matter) at the time that Bill was looking for a mate. If that was, indeed, the case, then I think she's lucky to get even this much respect in this profile.

He created the company and until recently owned most of it. It was his money and he is/was the richest man in the world. There are lots of smart people with MBAs and one very well known stupid one. Of course there's a predispostion to assume that he would be first among equals at least in some sense. If the richest person in the world was a WOMAN who had created one of the worlds biggest companies from nothing who married an employee do you suppose there would be this vigorous assertion how OF COURSE he's HAS TO BE her intellectual, etc. etc. equal in EVERY WAY? Look at Brad Pitt, he is Angelina's professional equal in every way but because she has a louder and more flamboyant tabloid past and present he apparently has been relegated in the public mind into some sort of Keven Federline role

I guess that means she must be brilliant. I wonder why our MBA-from-Harvard President seems so dim. I've got a law degree from an elite American university, but I wouldn't dream of imagining this alone immunizes me against questions about my intellect. Everyone knows Bill Gates. Hardly anyone knows Melinda Gates. Everyone knows rich guys like Bill Gates often marry women not particularly noted for their intellectual ferocity. Considering all that, which really ought to be considered, don't you think, the article is entirely unremarkable and unobjectionable.

First of all, you mischaracterized Ms. Gates's reason for avoiding the spotlight--it wasn't to spend more time with her kids, it was to ensure that they had as normal an upbringing as possible. That doesn't just mean more time with mom, but limiting media exposure. That Ms. Gates is trying to ensure that her kids have some privacy is a good thing.

Second, the article was not just about how touchy-feely she is. The author noted her command of the "numbers" involved in the philanthropic work, such as percentage improvements in infection rates, etc. And it noted that although Mr. Gates may be more outspoken, it is obvious to everyone that Ms. Gates was an equal partner in the decision making process.

I didn't get the sense that the writer was surprised that Ms. Gates was smart and dedicated because she was a woman, but because she is publically overshadowed by her extremely well-known husband. The article made the point that she was very involved in the work of the Foundation, an equal partner in its mission, and highly capable. I think Broadsheet is reading a little defensively here. And hey, the president of the foundation is a woman.

I have no proof that the Gates wife has any brains; neither the Times nor Broadsheet presents much evidence (other than the MBA, which others have pointed out means little).

It's fairly accepted in the Seattle area (at least among the techies and philanthropy-minded who have ever had contact with the Gateses) that Melinda is v. smart, and that she avoids the limelight in order to make a "normal" life for her children. Also, that Bill's sister is very smart, his father is very smart and very nice, and that Bill himself is odd, but nice.

Melinda Gates probably *is* very smart - if she weren't, I doubt Mr. Gates would have married her. But being smart, and being married to Bill, don't make Melinda the equal of Bill in terms of accomplishment, capability or accountability. Bill Gates founded the most powerful software empire in the world. He nursed it from step one to the current colossus it is. Melinda worked for Bill. And though she was doubtless quite competent in geneal, it is worth noting that she was the decision-maker behind the disastrous "Bob" software initiative. Clearly, her accomplishments do *not* stack up to those of her more illustrious spouse. This is just a fact, not a sexist slant on her story, such as it is.

I find it amusing, in this case, that Ms. Goldstein trots out Melinda's academic bona fides. Bill, after all, founded his empire without benefit of college degree. Just as his lack of college degree (clearly!) does not mean he is less capable than his degreed peers, neither does Ms. Gates' possession of an MBA prove she is more capable of her undegreed peers - for example, hubby Bill. She is doubtless competent - Microsoft hires few slackers and retains none - but it's worth nothing that

and that's about all you can say about her. as for co-founding a massive philanthropy, well, when your hubby's the richest man in the world, it ain't all that difficult. why not celebrate a woman who actually did something besides marry the money?

But I can't figure out why he gets upset whenever I tell him that. Some people can't take a compliment, I guess.

The only bone I'd pick at in the Times' piece was the "hold her own" comment--that was in the reporters' words, not a quote from a source. That does smack a bit of "little lady syndrome".

Otherwise, particularly the closing paragraph, tries to get at the less-public person of the two behind the Gates Foundation, and seems to do so fairly well. Smart, sure. You don't rise up the ladder at Microsoft without a decent amount of gray matter. And Gates, to his credit, doesn't strike me as someone who'd be content with a Barbie for a wife. Like his father and his mentor Warren Buffett, Gates seems to value true partnership of ideals and ideas as part of marriage. The Times article seems to get at that. (Now if only they'd tried to do so with their recent Clinton marriage article instead of turning it into a tabloid side bar.)