So, the post that originally took up this spot was on feminist archaeology.
The original intent of the essay had not been to provide an in-depth discussion of feminist archaeology, but rather to counter some of the common media arguments made that attempt to discredit it by mis-characterizing what it is and the types of claims made by feminist archaeologists.
However, when taken out of the context of the original place where it was posted, this becomes unclear, and it does look like it's suppose to be a good summary of the subject. And, well, my blog post was not a good summary of the subject. I received a comment that pointed out, correctly, that in my post I had focused on one very narrow aspect of feminist archaeology (even defining that aspect as feminist archaeology - and somehow I didn't catch that I had done this either in the original publication or when I re-posted it here), and I failed to mention the names of major feminist archaeologists (though, yes, I have read the work of Conkey, Gero, Spector, Watson and Kennedy, Gifford Gonzalez, and many others, and I am also aware of the earlier work of Marija Gimbutas).
Basically, in writing an essay for one context, I produced something that read very differently as a blog post. And I violated my own code of ethics in producing something that was (unintentionally) misleading. In the interest of being a responsible archaeology communicator, I have taken that entry back to draft while I re-work it.