Journalists do this with all sorts of translations. A foreign word for 'small bump in the road' gets translated as 'an insurmountable roadblock'. They might be synonyms for 'problem' but what self-respecting propagandist is going to let a little context or accuracy get in the way of a good story.
Tragic. It's the same elsewhere, I fear. But if you started providing affordable safe homes or properly subsidising housing for domestic abuse, it might eat into landlords' and banks' profits (it wouldn't, actually, as it would just provide another way of filtering public money into private hands, but this would piss off the petite bourgeois). There are some good women's centres but they're so underfunded they can only do so much.
What about all the murdered men? Why do you hate them?
Of course, reactionaries don't necessarily want any less murdering, men or women. Otherwise, as you say, they'd start other campaigns. But reactionaries, unquestioning of their political economic environment, don't stop to think why there's no impetus to prevent murder: it would make things too safe for minorities, and it would undermine the justification for so much surveillance and police militarisation. There's too much money in the murders that happen. The ruling ideas on murder prevention are, unsurprisingly, the ideas of the ruling class.
This is one of those comments where an 'acknowledgement upvote' could be misconstrued – I'm sure you've done fine!