Can women succeed in ‘having it all’?

Chaired by Sir Richard Collas, retired Bailiff of Guernsey and former Governor of The Ladies’ College, the debate welcomed Megan Pullum KC, HM Attorney General, who proposed the motion alongside Lower Sixth student, Isabel Round. Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez, President of Policy and Resources, opposed the motion alongside Upper Sixth student Bailey Austin.

In her role as opening proposition, Megan Pullum KC argued that the idea of ‘having it all’ has shifted from empowerment to exploitation. She argued that the modern expectation for women to seamlessly balance their careers, family, relationships, and wellness creates unrealistic pressures that often lead to burnout, guilt, and exhaustion.

‘The reality is that women still report performing the majority of unpaid and domestic care-giving work, on top of their paid employment. They still suffer from gender pay gaps and slower promotion rates as well and are often under represented in leadership roles. On top of all that, the cultural expectation of having it all often equates to doing it all – excelling at work, managing family and maintaining social roles.

She added that ‘choice without support is not freedom,’ calling for more honest conversations and consideration of structural changes such as flexible working, shorter working weeks and affordable childcare.

Lower Sixth student Isabel Round supported the motion alongside Megan, reflecting on the impact of social media and inequality on young women’s perceptions of success.

She argued: ‘Influencers fill our feeds with carefully curated perfection, telling us this standard is achievable and expected. Without the right support systems, trying to have it all leads to burnout.’ Isabel also highlighted that Guernsey’s historic delay in adopting equal pay legislation shows that equal opportunity has not always been a government priority.

In contrast, Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez opposed the motion and argued that striving for a full and balanced life is a healthy and necessary ambition for women.

She argued: ‘Trying is not failure. The act of seeking balance, meaning and satisfaction across different spheres of life is not only reasonable but essential. The problem is not women’s aspirations; it’s the outdated structures and attitudes that make the journey harder than it should be.’

Upper Sixth student Bailey Austin expanded on this, saying that ambition should be celebrated, not criticised.

She argued: ‘Trying doesn’t mean achieving everything at once, it means striving, adjusting and learning. If trying sets women up for failure, what’s the alternative? Not trying at all? That’s not empowerment – that’s resignation. The problem isn’t women trying to have it all – it’s that society expects them to do it alone.’

Before the debate began, the audience voted 51 in favour of the motion and 28 against. By the end, the room was almost evenly split, with 60 voting for and 61 against.

Principal Daniele Harford-Fox said: ‘Debating teaches our students to speak with conviction, to listen deeply, and to see the world in all its complexity. Yet again, it was lively, engaging and full of insight. What I loved most was how both sides found points of intersection – recognising that perhaps there are systemic reasons why women can’t always achieve everything, and whether striving against those systems is good or bad for us.

‘It was a really entertaining evening. The girls were, as always, totally fantastic and absolutely held their own with two of the most impressive women in Guernsey. Nail-bitingly, it was a win to the opposition and the closest debate we’ve ever had. Once again, it showcased the power of debate and how articulate and passionate this next generation are.’

The views expressed during the debate were adopted for the purposes of discussion and should not be used to suggest they are the personal views of the speakers.