What do you think?
Rate this book
Home-Grown
What do the attacks in London Bridge, Manchester and Westminster have in common with those at the Charlie Hebdo offices, the Finsbury Park Mosque attack and multiple US shootings?
They were all carried out by men with histories of domestic violence. TERRORISM BEGINS AT HOME. Terrorism is seen as a special category of crime that has blinded us to the obvious - that it is, almost always, male violence. The extraordinary link between so many tragic recent attacks is that the perpetrators have practised in private before their public outbursts. In these searing case studies, Joan Smith, feminist and human rights campaigner, makes a compelling and persuasive argument for a radical shift in perspective. Incomprehensible ideology is transformed through her clear-eyed research into a disturbing but familiar pattern. From the Manchester bomber to the Charlie Hebdo attackers, from angry white men to the Bethnal Green girls, from US school shootings to the London gang members who joined ISIS, Joan Smith shows that, time and time again, misogyny, trauma and abuse lurk beneath the rationalizations of religion or politics. Until Smith pointed it out in 2017, criminal authorities missed this connection because violence against women is dangerously normalised. Yet, since domestic abuse often comes before a public attack, it's here a solution to the scourge of our age might be found. Thought-provoking and essential, Home-Grown will lift the veil on a revelatory truth.
They were all carried out by men with histories of domestic violence. TERRORISM BEGINS AT HOME. Terrorism is seen as a special category of crime that has blinded us to the obvious - that it is, almost always, male violence. The extraordinary link between so many tragic recent attacks is that the perpetrators have practised in private before their public outbursts. In these searing case studies, Joan Smith, feminist and human rights campaigner, makes a compelling and persuasive argument for a radical shift in perspective. Incomprehensible ideology is transformed through her clear-eyed research into a disturbing but familiar pattern. From the Manchester bomber to the Charlie Hebdo attackers, from angry white men to the Bethnal Green girls, from US school shootings to the London gang members who joined ISIS, Joan Smith shows that, time and time again, misogyny, trauma and abuse lurk beneath the rationalizations of religion or politics. Until Smith pointed it out in 2017, criminal authorities missed this connection because violence against women is dangerously normalised. Yet, since domestic abuse often comes before a public attack, it's here a solution to the scourge of our age might be found. Thought-provoking and essential, Home-Grown will lift the veil on a revelatory truth.
320 pages, Hardcover
Published April 4, 2019
About the author
Joan Smith
19 books43 followersJoan Alison Smith is an English novelist, journalist and human rights activist, who is a former chair of the Writers in Prison committee in the English section of International PEN. In 2003 she was offered the MBE for her services to PEN, but refused the award. Joan Smith is an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
August 8, 2019
Much less academic/more subjective than I expected/wanted. There is plenty of support for the main premise of the book (that there is a connection among different forms of male violence) but the author takes far too many leaps to make her case when objective presentation of data would have been more persuasive. There is also a blatant judgmental tone that is ill conceived (for example, I often felt like she was demonizing divorced parents, and depicting women as helpless victims). Some helpful, succinct information on individual terrorists and their personal histories, though.
August 22, 2021
I wish this book was better. I thought it would be spectacular.
There are generalizations. There are flaws in the argument. There are jumps between correlation and causality.
This is the argument: “hatred of women and a history of domestic violence are key indicators of dehumanisation, a process of seeing other people as objects, which is a necessary first step towards becoming a terrorists.”
This may be true. It may not be true. However, violence is not one 'thing.' It is plural. It is diverse. It is contextualized.
The jump between domestic violence and terrorism is not made reasonable, trackable and verified through evidence by Smith.
It is an easy assumption that violence against women is correlated to violence against Indigenous citizens or violence against the Jewish community. It is more effective to research the diverse histories of violence and probe the differences.
Indeed, Smith offered a key inquiry: "The more interesting question is why some men … are so susceptible to violent ideology." If that question had been asked and answered, then the book would have been more effective.
The book is well written. But opinion is not evidence. More analysis and fewer assumptions would have enabled and improved this argument.
There are generalizations. There are flaws in the argument. There are jumps between correlation and causality.
This is the argument: “hatred of women and a history of domestic violence are key indicators of dehumanisation, a process of seeing other people as objects, which is a necessary first step towards becoming a terrorists.”
This may be true. It may not be true. However, violence is not one 'thing.' It is plural. It is diverse. It is contextualized.
The jump between domestic violence and terrorism is not made reasonable, trackable and verified through evidence by Smith.
It is an easy assumption that violence against women is correlated to violence against Indigenous citizens or violence against the Jewish community. It is more effective to research the diverse histories of violence and probe the differences.
Indeed, Smith offered a key inquiry: "The more interesting question is why some men … are so susceptible to violent ideology." If that question had been asked and answered, then the book would have been more effective.
The book is well written. But opinion is not evidence. More analysis and fewer assumptions would have enabled and improved this argument.
October 18, 2021
It is not a pleasant to read book nor it was intended to be. It mainly follows histories of attackers and focuses on evidences of domestic violence or having adverse childhood experiences. My main criticism is that there is little statistical analysis as the book is mainly narrative based, however, there are enough cases to support main claims e.g. that ideology is often less important than exposure or being part of domestic violence.
March 17, 2020
In her unapologetically dogmatic book, Smith aims to overturn the general perception of your typical terrorist's motivation. Far from being radicalised through a certain ideology, she argues, most terrorists buy into ideologies to justify and mask a pre-existing inclinatzion towards violence. Men who feel able to kill complete strangers have more often than not practised on the women in their homes. Domestic violence, not only as perpetrators but also as vicitms and witnesses, Smith argues, is one of the most important alarm signs for future terrorists. However, it is often overlooked or not taken seriously, because that's true for violence against women in general.
Compellingly argued and necessary, this book approaches the problem of terrorism from a different angle.
Compellingly argued and necessary, this book approaches the problem of terrorism from a different angle.
September 26, 2025
I really did want to like this...
I think the text suffers from a lack of defined terms and selection problems
on the first, I do not think 'terrorism' is a sufficiently non-controversial term to warrant not being given a working definition for the text. I assume Joan Smith has a working definition but she did not share this. this causes problems when attempting to link the Manchester bomber with the Las Vegas shooter
the second issue is probably more pronounced, Joan Smith predominantly provides examples of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism in the 2010s, as well as a few incel-adjacent terrorists (i agree they fall into this category but again defining terms is a must). there is little discussion of other forms of terrorism, groups like the IRA/UDA are mentioned in passing, but my understanding is many participants had reasonably healthy home lives, as least for the time.
on this note, a topic i thought warrants explanation is the actions of western military forces, the most egregious examples if not viewing entire country conflicts as terrorist endeavours. (no research to back this up) but I would suspect a similar pattern of misogyny and need to escape material conditions
where this reached really distasteful levels was in the conclusion where Joan Smith seems to take issue with the claim foreign policy has *any* bearing on terrorist ideation
with all this being said, I think if Joan Smith set out to argue a link between domestic violence and fundamentalist islamist/incel violence she does manage this, but I'm not sure this is a particularly controversial conclusion
for this book to be better, I think terms would need to be defined and a clear selection criteria provided (I.e. all mass casualty terrorist attacks between x and y, with all discussed)
another note, which maybe catty, is that Joan Smith argues that of nearly 42,000 foreign recruits to ISIS 4,761 were women while another 4,640 were minors, meaning that nearly 1/5 were either women or minors. of course, some (including the case discussed) were both. I think this as well as other points i have raised show a lack of critical engagement at the editing stage
I think the text suffers from a lack of defined terms and selection problems
on the first, I do not think 'terrorism' is a sufficiently non-controversial term to warrant not being given a working definition for the text. I assume Joan Smith has a working definition but she did not share this. this causes problems when attempting to link the Manchester bomber with the Las Vegas shooter
the second issue is probably more pronounced, Joan Smith predominantly provides examples of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism in the 2010s, as well as a few incel-adjacent terrorists (i agree they fall into this category but again defining terms is a must). there is little discussion of other forms of terrorism, groups like the IRA/UDA are mentioned in passing, but my understanding is many participants had reasonably healthy home lives, as least for the time.
on this note, a topic i thought warrants explanation is the actions of western military forces, the most egregious examples if not viewing entire country conflicts as terrorist endeavours. (no research to back this up) but I would suspect a similar pattern of misogyny and need to escape material conditions
where this reached really distasteful levels was in the conclusion where Joan Smith seems to take issue with the claim foreign policy has *any* bearing on terrorist ideation
with all this being said, I think if Joan Smith set out to argue a link between domestic violence and fundamentalist islamist/incel violence she does manage this, but I'm not sure this is a particularly controversial conclusion
for this book to be better, I think terms would need to be defined and a clear selection criteria provided (I.e. all mass casualty terrorist attacks between x and y, with all discussed)
another note, which maybe catty, is that Joan Smith argues that of nearly 42,000 foreign recruits to ISIS 4,761 were women while another 4,640 were minors, meaning that nearly 1/5 were either women or minors. of course, some (including the case discussed) were both. I think this as well as other points i have raised show a lack of critical engagement at the editing stage
March 14, 2021
In the context of an ongoing public debate on terrorism in the West, this important book by Joan Smith contributes an impassioned plea for considering domestic violence in offenders' criminal histories as a key indicator when gauging the risk for radicalisation and public violence. Smith convincingly argues her case and closes with a succinct list of proposed measures to avert the risks violent husbands, partners, fathers, and brothers pose to the public at large. She has chosen her samples skilfully and integrated them seamlessly with her valuable argument.
The shortcomings of this piece, however, are two-fold. First, Smith, who has written for various British new media outlets, neglects a rich literature of empirical studies and academic publications in favour of general press coverage and grey literature. As Smith is a journalist herself, this choice is not surprising, but still disappointing, since this book would have presented an ideal opportunity to render accessible the often technical specialist literature to a wider readership.
A second shortcoming emerges in the somewhat repetitive language Smith uses to drive home her overarching argument reflected in the title of the book. In order to maintain a streamlined narrative, subsections about individual terrorists and/or violent offenders often conclude with her boilerplate assertation that domestic violence in an individual's record are important and should be used to thwart the risk of large-scale violent offenses. A little more finesse in her style, and a trust in her readers' ability to align individual case studies with the wider story would have been welcome.
Nonetheless, 'Home Grown' was a fascinating and educational read, which I would highly recommend to potential readers as a timely and fresh approach to the gendered nature of terrorism and public violence.
The shortcomings of this piece, however, are two-fold. First, Smith, who has written for various British new media outlets, neglects a rich literature of empirical studies and academic publications in favour of general press coverage and grey literature. As Smith is a journalist herself, this choice is not surprising, but still disappointing, since this book would have presented an ideal opportunity to render accessible the often technical specialist literature to a wider readership.
A second shortcoming emerges in the somewhat repetitive language Smith uses to drive home her overarching argument reflected in the title of the book. In order to maintain a streamlined narrative, subsections about individual terrorists and/or violent offenders often conclude with her boilerplate assertation that domestic violence in an individual's record are important and should be used to thwart the risk of large-scale violent offenses. A little more finesse in her style, and a trust in her readers' ability to align individual case studies with the wider story would have been welcome.
Nonetheless, 'Home Grown' was a fascinating and educational read, which I would highly recommend to potential readers as a timely and fresh approach to the gendered nature of terrorism and public violence.
February 12, 2025
I wanted to like this more. The central premise - that very many people who go on to commit acts of terrorism have also perpetrated acts of domestic violence, and there is a causal link - is fascinating, and persuaded me there is something in it - but I wasn't satisfied that she had conclusively shown that to be true. She provided reams of circumstantial and direct evidence - but not enough statistical and other analysis to prove her point. There were tantalising sections showing evidence that there is perhaps a shared root cause for both - toxic masculinity, or an unjustified sense of entitlement and aggrievement, if you prefer - but the case wasn't strongly made. She referred to extensive case studies, from the incels and school shooters in the USA, to the various religious-inspired acts of terrorism in Europe and to Man Haris and the Sydney hostages - but as "terrorism" is a cultural and legal artifact, it is perhaps a slippery definition to hang your hat on.
An interesting read, but failed on several levels to really move my understanding of the world
An interesting read, but failed on several levels to really move my understanding of the world
June 15, 2021
Very subjective book in which the author uses a very small number of case studies to 'prove' her theory that domestic violence is a precursor to terrorism.
There are currently over a hundred definitions of terrorism and even then the author uses the term very loosely. A further point is that there is no one profile for terrorists and the most striking factor about most terrorists is not that they are rabid or violent psychopaths but how incredibly normal they are, think of Arendt's banality of evil.
The best that can be said for the authors theory is that domestic violence may be one of a large number of factors which may influence an individual in becoming a terrorist. However, just because an individual has one or more of these factors does not mean they will become a terrorist. The number of people with multiple risk factors for terrorism who actually become terrorists is very small.
There are currently over a hundred definitions of terrorism and even then the author uses the term very loosely. A further point is that there is no one profile for terrorists and the most striking factor about most terrorists is not that they are rabid or violent psychopaths but how incredibly normal they are, think of Arendt's banality of evil.
The best that can be said for the authors theory is that domestic violence may be one of a large number of factors which may influence an individual in becoming a terrorist. However, just because an individual has one or more of these factors does not mean they will become a terrorist. The number of people with multiple risk factors for terrorism who actually become terrorists is very small.
July 23, 2023
Let me start by acknowledging my bias: as an American consumer, most of this book was not as impactful as it could be, because it focused on British terrorism and glosses over the layers added to domestic violence and terrorism when gun violence is involved.
There are clearly a plethora of examples where religion is involved in terrorism. However, this feels targeted toward Islam at times and leans repetitive. The focus on religion warps the message into something unrecognizable toward the end.
Lastly, Smith misses out on an integral part of spreading her message -she forgets a call to action. There are no notes on what individuals can do to change the system, update legislation, or even check off warning signs that people they know may be affected.
These messages are important and I don't seek to deter anyone from reading this book. However, keep a critical eye on sources and the ability of authors to back up their claims with concrete proof or social/science literature.
There are clearly a plethora of examples where religion is involved in terrorism. However, this feels targeted toward Islam at times and leans repetitive. The focus on religion warps the message into something unrecognizable toward the end.
Lastly, Smith misses out on an integral part of spreading her message -she forgets a call to action. There are no notes on what individuals can do to change the system, update legislation, or even check off warning signs that people they know may be affected.
These messages are important and I don't seek to deter anyone from reading this book. However, keep a critical eye on sources and the ability of authors to back up their claims with concrete proof or social/science literature.
December 12, 2020
This book is vital and serves as a great reference for cases of terrorism in which domestic violence played a key factor. However, it does not go into any deeper analysis or provide any other conclusions other than 'people who terrorise their homes are more likely to terrorise the society'. Reading it feels repetitive, it's interesting to learn about all the individual cases but the conclusion is always the same, almost copied & pasted.
A very good list of actionable suggestions at the end though.
A very good list of actionable suggestions at the end though.
August 11, 2021
Misogyny and abuse of women leads to more violence from men
This is an excellent book which clearly links violence and misogyny from men to terrorism and how society (really the patriarchy) chooses to ignore that. This book should be required reading for all police forces and intelligence services
This is an excellent book which clearly links violence and misogyny from men to terrorism and how society (really the patriarchy) chooses to ignore that. This book should be required reading for all police forces and intelligence services
August 31, 2021
A must read
One of the most damaging effects of normalising male violence is that we don’t recognise it when it is staring us in the face. Terrorism is currently the most spectacular form of violence afflicting Western democracies, yet more often than not it is discussed as though it doesn’t even belong in the category of male violence
One of the most damaging effects of normalising male violence is that we don’t recognise it when it is staring us in the face. Terrorism is currently the most spectacular form of violence afflicting Western democracies, yet more often than not it is discussed as though it doesn’t even belong in the category of male violence
June 22, 2025
This book makes a good point but unfortunately comes across as quite poorly argued for the majority of the text, which is a shame considering the importance of the issue at hand (not to mention the already dismissive attitude towards domestic violence as a legitimate issue in the public domain). While there are places where the points are well-argued, swathes of the book lack proper depth and analysis. The overall tone is deeply carceral, which feels at odds with the professed feminist tone of the book. Additionally, orientalist and islamophobic undertones are frequently present.
September 18, 2024
Smith’s main argument is that domestic abuse is an early indicator of likelihood to commit a terror attack, and that many terror attacks are sexist in nature. At times interesting (the core argument of domestic violence as a warning sign seems fair), but more often than not subjective.
June 15, 2019
ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING. Loved it.
September 12, 2021
Fascinating
March 26, 2023
An excellent analysis of how misogyny and toxic masculinity turns (mostly) men into perpetrators of violence, and on into terrorists.
May 23, 2026
Fascinating
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews