Though many couples seem to be returning to traditional roles, Felice Schwartz of Catalyst argues that this is just a transitional stage. "Already women are entering every field and achieving at the same rate or higher rates than men for the first five or six years," says Schwartz. "But then, when the clock begins to tick, the women have children, and socialization seems to set in. As a society, we still believe deeply that nobody can love a child the way a mother can, and therefore that mothers should be home when their children are small. That is compounded by the inequality in pay—the man usually earns more, and there's an economic motive to follow his paycheck.

"But all of that is changing. Sixteen percent of women now earn more than their husbands. By the end of the decade, more than 50 percent of the work force will be women. And more and more, men are discovering the rewards of parenting—right from birth, when they coach their wives through delivery. When parenting truly becomes interchangeable, both men and women will have more flexibility—at home and at work."

Schwartz uses her own life as an example. The mother of three children (among them, me), she stopped working in 1951 and stayed home for eight years until we were all in school. My father, a scientist, worked long hours and was rarely home. "We never chose our roles," says my mother. "They were determined for us. But in retrospect, I think it would have been better if I had continued to work. I was intensely goal-oriented. If it had been socially acceptable, your father, who is wonderfully nurturing, probably would have been happier to spend more time at home. The whole family would have benefited."

There is little question that many men are more involved as parents than their fathers were. "I don't think there's a woman around more torn than I am about career versus being with my child," says Robert Murray, who will soon begin his three-hour commute. "I truly miss my daughter when I don't see her. I feel resentful that society still isn't flexible enough to allow me to structure a life where I can earn a reasonable income and still have a reasonable family life. What I mean is that to have a full-time career and earn, say, $50,000 takes a great deal of time. My ideal would be to share a job with my wife—both of us work half-time for $25,000—and both be home half-time. But who would let us do that?"

A growing number of New Yorkers who vowed they'd never move to the suburbs are beginning to reconsider now that they have children. And like the Murrays, most of them feel great misgivings about the choice.

In the fifties, the suburbs were still the promised land. Young parents, many of whom came of age in the Depression, moved there enthusiastically. The suburbs were viewed as an ideal place to raise children. But those children, who grew up in the sixties, are today's parents. They may wistfully recall the space and material comforts of their childhood—particularly if they now live in tiny Manhattan apartments. But they often remember the suburbs as bland and arid. They aren't so quick to accept that the suburbs are better for themselves or for their children.

Martin Asher, 40, and his wife, Judy, 39, recently bought a house in Westport, Connecticut. But they remain ambivalent about moving from their four-room rental apartment in Manhattan, where they live with two children, seven and four. Both the Ashers grew up in New York, and both work in the city. Martin is the director of the Quality Paperback Book Club, and Judy teaches tumbling to kids at Judy's Gym on West 81st Street.

For more than two years, the Ashers circled ads in the Sunday Times real-estate section and trooped around with brokers looking for an affordable New York apartment with at least one additional room. The search proved fruitless. Then one day last fall, they had lunch with a friend who lives happily in Westport. The Ashers drove up and bought the first house they saw. To pay for it, they sold a weekend house they owned upstate in Hudson—two and a half hours from the city.

"We're going to try living in Westport this summer as an experiment," says Martin. "I've never commuted in my life. I feel like it's a matter of trade-offs: the convenience of being able to walk to work and have everything nearby versus things like fresh air and space. You just have to decide what's most important to you."

There's one small hitch. "We can't decide," says Martin. "A lot of things are important to us, and on any given day it might be one instead of another. It used to be you moved to the suburbs for the children. But on some level, we still think of ourselves as children. As for my children, as much as they love the backyard, they also love the energy and excitement of New York. We were in Westport the other day, and I said to my son, 'Would you like to live here?' And he said, 'Yes, I'd like it very much. But can I still go to my school in the city?' It even occurred to us—why not let him do that? I would commute with my son, drop him off at school, let my wife's mother pick him up, and then commute back together when I finish work. We may even end up with some kind of modified double residency—weekdays in Westport, weekends in New York. We're trying to keep all the options open."

Related:

• Archive: “Features”
• Articles by Tony Schwartz
• From the Jul 15, 1985 issue of New York