How magnanimous. Harriet Harman, the acting leader of the Labour Party, has granted Diane Abbott a mercy nomination. They don’t agree with each other politically, but, heck, they’re both women. That should obviously override any and all other considerations, right?

Despair, thy name is tokenism.

Ed Balls has joined in too, eager to prove his pro-diversity credentials. He’s already got his 33 nominations, so he’s asked MPs intending to nominate him to nominate Diane Abbott instead. I think this demonstrates not so much good sportsmanship on Ed Ball’s part but rather just what sort of threat he considers Diane to be. That’d be “absolutely no threat whatsoever.”

Perhaps I’m being a little cynical. Perhaps after yesterday’s piece about the uncomfortable morality of positive discrimination I’m being overly sensitive to this rather public determination to ‘get a black woman on the ballot’ to make Labour look like a more woman and ethnic minority friendly party when the truth is that Labour’s parliamentary party have done little more than pat Diane on the head for standing and then utterly disregard her presence in the contest.

There is, after all, another left wing back-bench rebel trying to get on the ballot. This candidate has actually got more nominations, so in terms of ensuring there’s a broad spectrum of political opinion in the contest, this candidate might actually be the sensible one to pick. But this candidate is a white male. An old one, at that. No-one’s asking other MPs to give John McDonnell a nomination. He’s left to stand – and fall – on his own two feet, and if you want people to be truly equal that’s how things should be for Diane Abbott too.

I don’t think I’m ever going to understand this sort of logic, but then I’m not the kind of person Labour is trying to appeal to with this sort of highly public display of some-of-my-best-friends-are-black-ism.

So, my message to Labour MPs is this: Don’t you dare. Don’t nominate her just because she’s a woman. Don’t. You won’t be helping. Not really.

I don’t envy you. You’ve set yourselves up as the party that reflects the diversity of the nation, but when it really counts, when it really really matters you’ve looked to Oxbridge educated White Males to lead you, and that’s just plain embarrassing isn’t it? Would it really be so unthinkable to simply assert that Diane hasn’t been nominated because, well, she’s a bit crap?

Would that be so, so, so unthinkable?

“Are you still planning to beat up women when you grow up, Tarquin?”

Ah, so the Daily Mail seems to be going a bit mad at the moment. Harriet Harman is back in the news after announcing she wants children as young as 5 being taught, in school, that men beating up women is wrong.

Great. After that, perhaps they can also explain that chasing cats into locked cat flaps is cruel, that using a lighter in combination with an Aerosol can is unforgivably naughty, then can teach them not to call the black child in the class a nigger, and they can tell them not to call the kids with glasses Speccy Four Eyes.

The Daily Mail objects because it’s a waste of teaching resources and on the grounds that it’s something that parents should be teaching their offspring, not the state. They’re wrong – well, wrong to assume this is the most important objection.

I object because it’s planting the idea in the heads of children who do not, themselves, come from violent homes that men beat women – and then tells them that they shouldn’t do it themselves later.

I do not believe that you can assume that this will actually help.

At this point I’d like very, very much for someone to consult some qualified psychologists, especially child psychologists – is there any evidence to support the idea that teaching children that men grow up into violent wife beating monsters helps them overcome this particular ‘inclination’ later in life, or could it have the opposite effect? Does making young boys neurotic about when they might turn into wife beaters (does it happen overnight? Is it related to body hair? Oh no!) actually help?

I’m not dismissing the domestic violence issue. Far from it – I know all too well that if someone wants to do a bit of fighting then the easiest way to get away with it is to beat up your spouse or your children. The biggest problem with Domestic Violence is securing prosecutions. It’s all done behind closes doors and the victims are rarely willing to press charges. Once someone starts hitting you, it’s very easy to get stuck in a self-destructive mind-set, where the beatings destroy your self esteem to the point where you start thinking you actually deserve it. It’s not them, it’s you… which is all manner of screwed up but it’s a natural human reaction, so what do you do?

It’s also worth noting that women also beat men, which to this day is mentioned only in passing, giggling, as if a big strong man should be able to protect themselves easily against weak little women. Clearly it’s the exception rather than the rule for domestic violence, but it’s still an important exception and one that still, to this day, challenges the belief that men are always big, tough, strong and violent and women are always weak, harmless and helpless.

But this to me says that the the emphasis on men beating up women only perpetuates the idea that it’s impossible for women to hurt men, which isn’t true – people laugh when they see a woman beating up a man, which is really really patronising, and really really dangerous. Ask a bouncer, they’ll tell you how it is ‘on da streetz’.

I prefer the indirect approach – if we’re going to do anything at all it should be channelling children’s aggression and energy into something vaguely constructive (or at least not dangerous) and I think it should apply equally to boys and girls, so that we’re not actually reinforcing the idea that men are all violent monsters. The point is that the mark of an adult is self control, and that’s something schools can teach.