" 

 == NPOV == 

 This article suffers from a NPOV. For instance, the section on Contorversy starts out with this:""There has been disagreement among women regarding the usefulness of the term."" WTF!? Since when do women constitute the (only) relevant commentators? If ""males"" are consitutionally incapable of providing valid commentary on this word, a reference needs to be provided. If the criticism is valid, the gender of the author is immaterial, if it isn't its also so (unless you're a femnazi or ...what's the male mirror image? male chauvinist? (now THERE's a need for a new word!)). My mild suggestion is to leave the sex of the authors out of the analysis.   

 :I reverted this because I agree with the IP's statement and was about to add my comment when I saw the reversion. Please discuss on the talk page your reasons for the reversion, as the IP has a point that should be addressed.    

 ::I'm going to put a POV on this article until this issue is addressed - please don't revert this whole section until it is.    "