Interesting that no one has mentioned social demographics here. What you're describing sounds to me like an incredibly middle class existence that some people will never achieve no matter how hard they work, purely down to the opportunities that may or may not be available to them.
The kind of prestigious grad schemes that lead to these high paying jobs won't have a huge amount of working class people on them, because growing up in a poor area with a poor family and no familial support to do well at school is going to make it a damn sight tougher to get there. I'm generalising here, and I know there are exceptions (and I'm saying this as someone from a working class background) but what you're describing sounds like a very specific and narrow sector of the population.
Also there's the fact that some careers just aren't well-paid and not everyone is money motivated. Is a woman who achieves her lifelong ambition, even if that's in a poorly-paid sector like, for instance, a creative industry, eligible to be classed as 'having it all' if she also has the husband, house and kids, or is it purely about money?
I agree that what you've described is the media's narrow definition of 'having it all' but that's usually ascribed when talking about women like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer who are exceptions to the rule. I think in wider society it rather more depends on what individual women actually want for themselves.
And I don't know a single person who fits your criteria. In my social group, we're all dedicated to our careers but most of us are in a creative sector where wages aren't great, nobody's having kids (either aren't in a financial/living situation to have them or don't want them) and we're in London and don't have a hope in hell of ever affording to buy houses here. But on the whole we're happy, and achieving our goals and ambitions. I do think what you've described is pretty much unheard of for millennials who've gone to London to pursue their careers, but I'm aware that is a very specific subset of people