Paternalism? REally?

So my objection for today is the use of/advocation for the term "paternalism" in Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler’s Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron. Here's why it bothers me:
1. Duh, cause I'm a feminist. I can't reconcile myself to Sunstein and Thaler's idea that "the term "paternalistic" should not be considered pejorative, just descriptive," Yeah, I know S and T say their system doesn’t abuse paternalism because the libertarian bit always means there is a choice—but the crux of their argument is that this choice is flexibly persuadable to the point of being a non-choice, which should be exploited to everyone’s well-being ( and just who is deciding this well-being? Do we trust the authors invocation of empirical evidence-and those gathering it- to safeguard against abuse?)

2. I think it’s a flimsy excuse to include the term paternalism on the grounds that it is commonly used. This article tries to get readers to agree with the ideas set forth and also to show readers their own susceptibility to persuasion based on the way an issue is presented. It undermines S and T’s own argument when their issue is presented through the use of a term with potentially alienating power.
3. Nudge, the book based on this article, is crazy popular where I used to work, the official bookstore of the Wharton Business School. I don’t fancy paternalism in any form becoming the buzzword in a place famous for creating the “Leaders of Tomorrow.”