Two types of religious conservative - pro-social authority and pro-social ignorance

 I am a children's rights Christian/conservative, and what this means is that I have done the core deed that makes you conservative - submitted to Christ and admitted my sin nature. Gentle parenting is a conservative ideology from my standpoint, but is a mirror theology, meaning project what you want onto it politically. Conservative gentle parents submit to God through their child, seeing their child as extended to them by God as the "least of these" for protection and care, respecting them without punishment. There are two sides of conservatism. We tend to get along, but we tend to view conservative thought very differently under the surface. What are we talking about? Pro-social authority conservatives are the law and order type that are likely to support corporal punishment strongly, and proselytize that view adamantly. Pro-social ignorance is maybe spanking your child, and tuning out the spanking debate, or else not spanking and keeping quiet about it..

I myself am a bit of both sides, as some of us in conservatism are. I do believe in the concept of strong authority for adults who abuse others. We can be very progressive on anti-abuser issues such as domestic violence and rape, with a few of us already deeming spanking and corporal punishment as another form of domestic violence we don't consider. 

That's where the pro-social ignorance comes in. Never question the testimony of a victim. Even if you have a bias, shed it immediately, for you are beholden to the bias of a victim of abuse or crime while trying to serve their needs. The pro-social authority is when they want you to help them find the courage to press charges, and lock up the sick bastard who beats them by day and rapes them by night. Your conservative values don't stick up for abusers, but want them steam-rollered over by very harsh prison sentences, as a pro-social deterrent for abusing a fellow human being. We might support rehabilitative options with the victim's consent, but hide that support so not to give the abuser credence, and encourage gratitude for the help they do receive, when we could easily throw them in a cell like trash. That's how I like to solve things - lock them up in prison, and throw away the key. 

I am a zero tolerance conservative on child abuse treatment and punishment, meaning you get a dialing system depending on what level of abuser you are on. Think the traffic light our schools use to torment children - let's torment the abusers with it! Green is no punishment or other parent-child disputes in the home. When you are on yellow, that means you are struggling with a domestic violence problem, as do many here. Struggle quietly, and don't demand your rights to me, as if you defend your right to abuse, you end up on red, and then in the hypothetical case that spanking a child was illegal, you just victimized a child in an entitled way, and we should charge you with felony child abuse charges. If the "reasonable chastisement" defense was abolished here in Pennsylvania, the District Attorney could charges a repeated physical abuser with endangering the welfare of children (EWOC) which is a felony of the third degree, with a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison. Let them hang before their first parole hearing, for the slightest of offense against a child, for I want zero tolerance on this issue, meaning if not prison than social isolation for everyone knowing what a defiant spoog that you are.

Law and order conservatism like I believe in is going by the wayside. I am influenced somewhat by growing up in the 1990s and early 2000s, when zero tolerance was a more common practice, including here in Reading, Pennsylvania. Also, the scare about kidnapping was common. I wanted to see society panic like that about children getting punished, and come together for the children while meaning it. Some parents, like the ones here or that support here, were for it for the right reasons. Some parents jumped on the bandwagon as a deflective front for abuse on their part. Have a secure attachment with your child, and they'll go nowhere but with you, and that's what's good and just. I was angry that my trauma was getting a back seat. It still does in the media, but not here, hence why I do not like this mini angry mob on the lower deck of the movement trying to kick me out when they know they can't. 

A bulk of conservatives today are for criminal justice reform. However, that is a vague term, and be taken in the other direction as well, meaning we don't have enough laws protecting children. We already say sexual predators deserve a bullet to the head - that's how we talk about them here in conservatism, though I drop the "pedophile" because it is a disorder, and there are people who don't act on that and want help (a more pro-social ignorance cause for me). I just want things to get to the point where that pro-social evil anger is directed at pro-spanking parents. Where they feel the long arm of the law watching them even in private, so they don't do it - we at children's rights should be that scary to parents, like the viper coming down to terrorize them with new laws being passed, criminalizing parents and celebrating it, for whatever harm comes from an afterhours raid is collateral damage for a greater good, which is protecting children, including from being hit. Disproportionate legal force against parents that teaches them a lesson.

Most conservatives today only think this way about pedophiles, and think anyone who says they are a pedophile has something to hide. All the while, some conservatives will thump the Constitution even for sex offenders. I myself support strong, zero tolerance sentences for sexual abuse because a pedophile is actually more likely to be a victim of child abuse than a perpetrator of child abuse. Most don't need to learn that their parents abused them - that's why they resent and maybe hate parents. It's a peacekeeping hatred, where you can be civil with a parent but point to it in a manner that even an otherwise pro-spanking parent feels compassion for you. Some conservatives are starting to care about criminals. Some even thump the constitution to survivors about the rights of sex offenders. I think our laws are crazy, to be clear, as do a lot of people quietly, but there needs to be some monitoring of all abusers, and we shouldn't discriminate based on sexual motives. We should monitor all the abusers, meaning have a list and the authorities go door to door warning neighbors about an abuser that may retaliate against their children. Pro-spanking parents should be arrested for their abuse, and should be tracked just like the "pedophiles" they hate yet might be abusing in the process, and if you relish in that, you're on my bad side.

I support strong authority, but the type of authority that keeps parents in balance and check, making sure parents don't cross a line and become entitled abusers. I support general protective services even for pedophile parents if they submit to help and support, but if an abuser doesn't want help, there should be a way to dispose of them like the trash they are. For me, I would say I am grateful for the general protective services that I get from my therapist and psychiatrist/medical assistant, because child victims have complete power and control over their own bodily or other autonomy, meaning they can set lawful boundaries with me, and they should be able to with other adults as well. I believe strongly in the concept that human beings are born with a depraved and wicked nature, but as an advocate for the rights of children, think this only applies to adults, in relation to children. We should cut children a break because they don't know any better, and need to be taught. 

Not every children's rights advocate or supporter is a liberal feminist. Some of us simply hate abusers due to using their sin nature to abuse others. Why can't one oppose spanking like that? Since the authorities won't lock up the patents and throw away the key, we can simply know that the parents will suffer in Hell on their last day, or else, maybe at the same time, hope they seek help. Depends on the hopelessness of my mood. Not all conservatives are opposed to children's rights. Only the more vocal ones are. Sometimes, a sea change does happen, and in this case, public opinion will change.