Facts suggest the former problem is greatly exaggerated, the latter almost non-existent. Just 1 out of every 1,000 black men who are deliberately killed has his life ended by a police officer. That is if we include justified police killings. Most are sent to their graves by non-white criminals. For every black man killed by a police officer, 18 officers are killed by black men. 58% of domestic violence cases involve reciprocal violence between partners. 44% of lesbian women have been domestic violence victims compared to 35% of heterosexuals. The total number of heterosexual victims is only higher because most women are heterosexual. Minimizing the number of slain black men requires a focus on combating crime. Domestic violence won’t be minimized by targeting unidirectional male on female offenses.
Why, then, do male on female violence and killings by police receive the lion’s share of attention? Because of ideological presuppositions grounded in quasi-Marxist Frankfurt Critical Theory.
According to Frankfurt Critical Theory, all inequalities of “real power” are oppressive. Do people who earn more money contribute more to political campaigns and gain greater influence? That’s “oppressive.” Do higher earners give their children advantages others lack? That’s “structural injustice.” Whether a higher proportion of blacks than of whites is poor because of racism or as a consequence of normal class structures is of little concern. The consequences of some people's greater abilities, harder work and property rights are considered comparable to Jim Crow. All are considered “structural injustice.” Those benefiting from it are said to inevitably develop hostility towards those who don’t. Denial that one has such prejudices is considered evidence of their existence. Even rationality and scientific knowledge are criticized as partially reflecting “oppressive” attitudes.
These beliefs provide the basis for “critical feminism” and “critical race theory.” Women and black people are declared “oppressed,” men and white people “privileged oppressors.” The actions of the latter are automatically condemned as influenced by prejudice. Prejudice and "unjust social structures" are automatically assumed to be the reason for real or alleged mistreatment of "the oppressed." (Hence Derek Chauvin’s killing of George Floyd being ascribed to racism rather than individual brutality.) “Moderates” might accept personal choice as the reason for violence within a “group.” Extremists argue white and male violence results from “oppressive habits,” black and female violence from “reaction to oppression.” Using demonstrable facts to argue the contrary is condemned in advance as product of prejudice.
This ideology doesn't prioritize combating the most severe misdeeds. It does not prioritize combating those impacting the most people. Its concern is not for individual victims. Its concern is for the “power relationships” of “groups.” Its goal is not to minimize the number of women victims or of black people who are killed. It is to attack normal class structures. Black on white and male and female violence are considered central to this effort. Whether partners in a lesbian relationship break each others' bones is irrelevant.
Public policy ought to adopt the opposite mindset. It should focus on the needs of real individuals. The questions it should ask include: Who are the most common victims of domestic violence? Who most commonly commits domestic violence against women? Who most commonly kills black men? Resources should prioritize efforts to stop the more serious or the more widespread forms of violence and suffering. This won’t “change social structures.” It will help actual people have better lives.