No.
You're making the assumption that women have egos the size of small planets and actually care if men who are against AA think they deserve their successes or not...because it really is only men who are against AA who are probably going to put the asterisk next to the entire female gender's success.
Not all women have gotten preferential treatment and in many cases women have had to deal with extreme sexism to reach success.
Some would argue that any preferential treatment women did get was outweighed by the amount of discrimination she was subjected to.
If there should be an asterisk next to all women's successes today, then there should be an asterisk next all men's successes 30 years ago and before that, specifically because men were very obviously given preference over women in the workforce...and white men were given preference over all other men so if ever there should be an asterisk, it should be on the successes of white men in Western society.
BQ: Like I said before, white men have always been given preferential treatment in Western society so put an asterisk next to their success and I don't think most women would mind if you put an asterisk next to theirs also.
Edit:
Purposely keeping women out of the workforce for so long gave men a huge advantage toward being successful. It was a monopoly on success...yet many men still have the nerve to come here and ask why so few women have invented anything throughout history. Most men don't seem to have a problem claiming full success for things that were invented and accomplished while women were purposely kept out of the workforce, why exactly should women feel less proud of their accomplishments nowadays compared to the huge advantage men used to have?
Put an asterisk next to Einstein and we'll call it even.
Edit:
Most colleges didn't even permit women to be in their programs in the past. Are you saying you were unaware of that? Laws are not needed in order to discriminate against minority and vulnerable groups if one particular group (white males) are determined and capable of only hiring people of their particular type when given the option. It's called human nature. Value has very little to do with it if they are not judging the individual for what that individual is capable of and are only keeping them out specifically because of the genitals they were born with.
http://www.northnet.org/stlawrenceaauw/college.htm
Edit:
Okay, so then everything done by men 150 years ago and before should have an asterisk? Is that what you're admitting to then?
It's clear you're not willing to admit that opening colleges to women would have had very little effect on actually encouraging families to pay for a woman to get an education, since the chances of that woman actually being able to make a living from that education and making the investment worthwhile was very slim. So we'll just put an asterisk 150 years ago and before and agree there is a very good reason for doing so, right?
Edit:
If people did not have set perceptions about what a woman or racial minority is capable of, it wouldn't be necessary to insist that people be judged by their individual capabilities instead of by the stereotypes associated with their particular group.