She, sorry--I apparently took you more seriously than you did yourself!
From what I've read, one of the arguments against this whole "y" thing was that etymologically, the words "man" and "woman" already differ. It's pretty clear that it wasn't a case of carefully analyzing the roots of English words. But I'm just presenting the argument as I understand it; I'm certainly no expert on the subject. :-)
It seems to me, though, that woman is the sort of word you don't see as implying anything (like so many words in English used daily, remaining oblivious to their roots) until it's specifically brought to your attention. (Funny how, in focusing on the implications of the word woman, one could also choose to disregard the products of intentional misspelling being considered almost universally silly!)
And, by that logic (though faulty — woman is from wífman, a compound where wíf (wife) meant woman, and man meant human being), wife — which, for a time, after originally meaning "woman," meant "woman of lowly rank or employment" — should be just as reprehensible, yes?
I dislike it immensely, she, but I understand the thinking behind it--and it had nothing to do with spelling like a pop star. The spelling was coined to point out what feminists (in the "old" sense of the term) believed was an inherent bias in the English language, which in turn they believed reflected historical and social subordination of women. The spellings of "woman" and "women," they argued, suggest that women are a subset of men. It was an effort to "own" what they were called.
The whole premise, if I understand it correctly, was based on the argument that language can be a powerful tool in shaping how people perceive others and how they understand the world.