Like other jurisdictions, Singapore has made strides toward eliminating discrimination against women and creating gender parity in the workforce. In the legal profession, Singapore also faces challenges similar to other countries, including work-life balance and attrition of mid-career women lawyers. This
article explores the impact of gender on women in the Singaporean legal profession via in-depth interviews. The article investigates the experiences of women lawyers with gender generally, but following the interviewees\u2019 lead, focuses on challenges and strategies regarding maternity and caregiving. The interviews suggest that for various reasons, maternity and caretaking responsibilities fell
heavily on women interviewees, and that if a legal workplace imposes a heavy workload that is delivered in the office and goes into evenings and weekends, something has to give. However, that something need not be a woman\u2019s legal career. The interviews indicate that interviewees adopted a variety of strategies to create a sustainable environment, including professional relocation from one
employment environment to another and varied support systems. The degree of success experienced by interviewees suggests that women could be retained in the legal workforce if they are provided with greater flexibility and support, via clear workplace policies together with conversations between lawyers and their employers regarding their use.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Like other jurisdictions, Singapore has made strides toward eliminating discrimination against women and creating gender parity in the workforce. In the legal profession, Singapore also faces challenges similar to other countries, including work-life balance and attrition of mid-career women lawyers. Thisarticle explores the impact of gender on women in the Singaporean legal profession via in-depth…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,24,450],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles-2","category-symposium","category-56-2"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4308","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/58"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4308"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4308\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4320,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4308\/revisions\/4320"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}