I appreciate the spirit of it, but there is one aspect of Valerie's blog that really bothers me.
To be clear, I like that Valerie is bringing the problem to light, something needs to be done, and while the red cards are a good start, more is needed.
I support her stance on many things in general - when they were hesitant to listen to me and "cause trouble", I've referred women in the tech industry who I knew where underpaid relative to men to her suggestions on negotiation.
What I don't like is that she seemed to feel the need to justify women being present at the conference for professional reasons. I realize this was *not* really her intent.. to imply that if women couldn't justify their presence, then maybe the guys were not wholly responsible for their own actions. Maybe I'm reading this through a male filter or something, but, although it was not the intent, it seemed to be implied in her blog.
I think the appropriate response is that if some DEFCON participants and organizers think it's OK to condone sexual assault (e.g. getting one's crotch unwillingly grabbed - and unwilling is something that is entirely up to the one getting grabbed - the one assaulting cannot simply have claimed to be mislead or confused), they should hold the conference in a country where it is culturally and legally acceptable to assault women, and be prepared to deal with all the negative consequences of supporting that stance.
In short, if DEFCON attendees & organizers want to disrespect women, and violate the law, they should leave, not the women.
I don't care if a woman wonders in off the strip, half-naked, drunk, and high on ecstasy. If you assault her, or encourage her to be assaulted, you should be held responsible for your actions. No excuses.
Now, like I said, I probably missed something with my white-male tech guy filter.. but, hey, maybe someone can clear that up for me.. (someone with a clue, please, with similar reasoning abilities and ethics to Valerie)