Improving the Whisky World for Women: Why is the Whisky Bible still a thing?

What is the W.B.?

The Whiskey Bible is a book published in annual editions by Jim Murray. Starting in 2003, Murray reviewed a range of whiskies, and has since sold 1 million copies worldwide ( according to his website ). Its widespread recognition is clear and present across many parts of the world, with roundels bearing his name and score marking bottles and distillery websites alike. 

A copy of the 2023 WB which I was gifted in Belgium

In a world full of near-endless reviews and informative whiskey books, the most distinctive aspect of the WB is probably Murray's scoring system / writing style. He ranks drams out of 100.0, and includes a page on 'The Murray Method' for how to taste whiskey in each edition. He enjoys the mild controversy of giving idiosyncratic advice, eg, 'take no notice of the first mouthful'. You can see how this grabs many readers more than plain, dry description or the same basic tips repeated over and over again. 

Before writing about whisky, Murray used to be a journalist and football writer based in England. He is very selective about magazine writings, insisting on retaining full copyright and even trademarking his own name.

2020: Opening the Can of Worms

Back in 2020, Becky Paskin posed a simple but important question:

“Why does the whiskey industry still hold Jim Murray's Whiskey Bible in such high regard when his reviews are so sexist and vulgar?”

Paskin found dozens of examples in that year's edition of the WB, such as this quote for Penderyn Single Cask which combines a few different prejudices with a general tastelessness:

“This celebrates maltiness in the same way a sex addict revels in a threesome.”

Becky Paskin

Such examples appear spotted throughout the various WB editions. In 2017, Murray described one whiskey as 'a 40 year old woman who has kept her figure and looks, and now only satin stands in the way between you and so much beauty and experience… and believe me, she's spicy'. 

These descriptions represent only a small amount of Murray's writing. You can easily miss them altogether, but they still exist. As far back as 2012, Diving for Pearls described Murray's writing style as 'grandiose emotional (sometimes carnal, oft metaphysic) phrasings [which] some readers have labeled "maltoporn".' More importantly, I think the response to this call-out is telling, and we can see how Murray is really representative of a larger problem. 

What's the Issue?

By definition, everyone drinking and appreciating whiskey is (or should be, at least) an adult. There's nothing wrong with whiskey reviews being correspondingly adult in tone, but that isn't the same as using a host of sexist metaphors. It's revealing that these metaphors always come from Jim Murray's own straight male perspective. These aren't metaphors effectively conveying his ideas to an adult audience. This is locker room talk, plain and simple. It reflects the long-established use of women as sexual objects in marketing. 

Maybe you're a distiller who finds that one of your whiskeys sells more to women than men, for example. There's nothing wrong with observing that. The issue is demarcating a dram as appropriate for one gender over the other, which often involves relegating light or sweet whiskeys to women. 

I can't tell you how many times this still gets trotted out to me by whiskey drinkers everywhere. Every woman I've ever met who works with whiskey can describe enduring similar comments while they work. In addition to the sexism, this annoys me just for being so demonstrably inaccurate. Not only do many women enjoy heavy, spicy, and smoky whiskies, but in my experience they are more able to enjoy heavily peated drams without tying their egos to them.

Sloppy Mistakes and Uneven Coverage

Alongside issues of sexist language in the Whiskey Bible, there are all sorts of mistakes inside which belie the problems with Murray's approach to whiskey and writing. You would think something called a 'bible' was trying to provide an authoritative overview, yet the selection of whiskeys which Murray reviews is incredibly uneven and unrepresentative.

You may not realize from picking up a copy that Murray just adds on new entries each year. Occasionally, an old review might get updated, but most entries come from previous years. As Felipe Schriebinger outlines in an article for Forbes titled ' Sexism In Whiskey: Why You Shouldn't Read The Whiskey Bible ', Murray adds or edits roughly 1200 entries per year: about ¼ of the total. 

Murray's WB entries are also frustratingly inconsistent. Every dram gets a score breakdown, yes, but some descriptions run to one sentence while others are paragraphs-long. He makes no effort to create balanced coverage of countries or distilleries, simply relying on which samples are sent to him. For someone who boasts of writing independently, free of advertisers, Murray's writing serves as free/cheap advertising for distilleries willing to send him several samples every year. 

In 2023, he reviewed a dozen expressions of Kronog from Glann ar Mor, but only 1 from Rozelieures, which is also a significant French distillery. Murray fills three pages with Belgian Owl limited editions, most of which aren't available for sale to the public any more. Why are they even in the guide still? The WB functions fine as an idiosyncratic record of one man's drinking - but as a reference guide? A 'whiskey bible'? A score out of 100 which can be relied on? No chance.

For something which claims to be pseudo-encyclopedic, the WB also has a fair few mistakes. Sticking just with European whiskies, I note that in the 2023 edition alone:

• He lists Solvognen (Single Malt) and Brænderiet Limfjorden under separate distillery entries, while Solvognen is simply the name of a Limfjorden single malt expression
• Distillerie du Périgord is rendered as 'Perigold'
• He lists Sylt Whiskey as coming from the isle of Sylt, when it in fact comes from Lantenhammer, at the opposite end of Germany! Sylt Distillers is an entirely separate business/distillery
• Murray is confused or misled about which whiskeys from Knaplund Distillery in Denmark were actually distilled there, and which are bottlings of American whiskey given a second aging in Denmark
• He makes a strange point about Estonian history when discussing Moe. You can read more about that below this article if you like, but it's a digression, so i'm keeping it separate **

The lack of any sense of balance within the WB can further be seen in the range of European whiskeys surveyed. By 2023, the Netherlands had around 30 to 40 distilleries making whisky, of which at least 10 to 15 had finished whiskey available to taste. Despite this, Murray only reviewed Millstone/Zuidam, and 6 expressions at that. Millstone whiskey has been around for over 20 years, with dozens of expressions, and his six reviews don't even include their flagship whiskies, the 100 rye and 92 rye. 

The entire Netherlands gets a fraction of a page, sharing the rest of it with Norway, Liechtenstein, and part of Portugal! Penderyn alone has more inches of print dedicated to it. By the way, Murray's entry for Liechtenstein includes a closed distillery, Telser. What is the point of releasing an annual book if you keep entries on now-closed distilleries in there? England, Austria, and Switzerland have similar numbers of whiskey distilleries to the Netherlands, and yet those get 7, 4, and 4 pages respectively. 

Telser Distillery, Liechtenstein

Murray's Reaction

An appropriate reaction to Paskin's writing back in 2020 could have been quick and easy. Some form of 'I understand, my apologies, I'll change those specific reviews and not do that again.' It would likely have been a non-issue. However, Murray's responses that year went entirely the opposite direction.

Arrogantly appointing himself 'the world's most successful author on the subject', Murray tried to reframe the issue and cast himself as a plaintiff in court:

“This is not a matter of alleged sexism on the trumped up charges against me – which have clearly been concocted for very clear purposes – this is an attack on the very essence of what it is to be a critic in any sphere, be it music, art, sport, wine or whisky. In other words: an attack on free thought and free speech.”

“Concocted”? Thinking the quotations listed above are not sexist is one thing, but they do exist, right there in Murray's books. There's nothing 'concocted' about them. Apparently, whiskey critics are a vanguard of free speech in society? Comparable perhaps to investigative journalists or whistleblowers? 

Crucially, Paskin didn't even call for the WB to be censored or banned in any way, as Murray's cries about free speech would suggest. As David Tjeder puts it , 

“No one is trying to hinder Jim Murray from writing… he is absolutely free to continue being the sexist douchebag that he is.”

Refusing to acknowledge his place within the wider context of an undoubtedly sexist and unbalanced whiskey industry, Murray pivoted to making everything a personal slight. 

This self-centered reaction is probably more revealing than Murray intended, though it should be noted that he does not name any of his critics. They remain a nebulous 'they'. Murray raised the stakes further, calling his accusers 'latter day Cromwellians' engaged in 'a battle between free speech and humorless puritanism.' Indeed, he escalated discussion of his own writing to something of importance to society's very foundations:

“I have always fought the bully and I will do so here… these people appeal to me because what they are doing is undermining society itself.”

Sheer hyperbole. If Becky Paskin is capable of undermining society itself by writing a few articles, 'society' must be incredibly fragile. Perhaps 'masculinity' or 'ego' would be more suitable replacements for that word. 

If Murray really is the expert he claims to be - and he certainly has spent decades interacting with distilleries - he could not seriously suggest that whiskey is not a world ridden with sexism. It's an obvious fact today, let alone in the 1970s when Murray first visited a distillery (or the 2000s when he first published the WB). 

Now maybe Murray thinks that he serves an anti-sexist presence, improving this space. If that is the case, I cannot find such a claim from him in writing. Instead, he claims to have

“dedicated 30 years of my life, longer than anyone else on this planet, fighting for whiskey and the whiskey underdog.”

This is just jaw dropping. In an industry where many famous people are essentially employed for life, claiming that no-one else has 'fought for whisky' in that time is simply unbelievable. Not to mention his idea of ​​​​an underdog. Whiskey occupies something of a cultural hegemony within Western media, and by extension influences much of the world. It's a prestige product in American TV dramas, a cornerstone of Westerns and Bond films. Scotch whisky in particular is one of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries' great capitalist success stories. There are surely 'underdog' stories within that history, but the term/idea is so vague and attached to Murray's own sense of self importance here that it becomes meaningless.

Bear in mind, Murray has long thought that his writing makes a massive difference to whisky's success across the world. He claims to have had Japanese distillers thank him for earning them millions, and also claims to have single-handedly saved the 'entirely unknown' concept of Irish Single Pot Still whiskey from extinction… by saying that Redbreast was good. Maybe he sees himself as a 'whiskey underdog'. If this was ever true, it hasn't been for a long time.

Sexism in whiskey is much bigger than Murray

Anecdotes of sexist behavior in the whiskey industry exist in overwhelming numbers. I could ask any former colleague from Edinburgh. For full transparency, I remember talking about a woman who was a fellow tour guide while working at the Scotch Whiskey Experience. I jumped into an interaction she was having with a customer (a man) to correct her: it was patronizing and thoughtless. She took me aside and rightly called me out on it. Unlike Mr Murray, I was able to acknowledge that and not do it again. It's right to be upfront and correct your behavior. The writer of Whiskey Sponge made more direct statements about Murray, claiming that

“...when I worked at Ardbeg distillery in 2005 and 2006 there were already stories aplenty about him that go far beyond the language he chose to deploy in his tasting notes. I've never met a woman in the whiskey industry who didn't think the way he wrote or conducted himself was sexist.”

Murray's success as a writer does not excuse the sexism in his language, and it also does not make him exceptional, or the entirety of the problem. In a great article from 2020, Swedish writer David Tjeder pointed out that Paskin and Schrieberg's headline-generating critiques simply highlighted Murray as one example of a wider issue. They only presented him as the tip of the iceberg; the most popular writer in a frequently sexist field, deserving of criticism in part because he was unexceptional. 'The entity being called out by Paskin is bigger', Tjeder concluded: 'it's the whiskey industry.'

Whiskey distilleries themselves can also play into this, such as promoting regressive ideas about 'soft' and 'delicate' whiskeys being inherently suited to women. Austrian producers Weingut Zöchmeister have a category on their website for (Feminine) Specialties including gin, liqueurs, and cream liqueurs - none of the distillery's many whiskies are in this section of their product list.

Page 3 pin-ups in distillery back-rooms, sexist comments from men expecting me to nod along… From my side, I dislike this condescending assumption that I am a man 'in on the joke'.* If any such man is reading this, please know that I am not in the mood for any of that crap. 

At time of publishing, the French-run website Private Whiskey Society has an entirely uncritical list of 'the top 10 sexiest whiskey ads'. If you want to see sexism well and alive on a whisky blog run only by men, voila. Of course, they did not create the ads - the whisky industry did - but they celebrate them. They don't question why only women (and thin white women at that) are being used to sell whisky this way. 

Murray's Reaction in 2023

Did Murray change his tune in the years following? The 2023 Whiskey Bible's farewell note, 'Sláinte', suggests the opposite. Murray called the strong sales of 2022's WB 'a mark of solidarity against Cancel Culture' - and yes, he capitalized 'Cancel Culture' along with 'Wokery'. Invoking a year of 'universal misjustice, mine included', Murray claimed people were 'waking up to the chilling threat that Wokery brings'.

Frankly, I believe this is not language worthy of anyone that should be taken seriously. Ranting about 'Cancel Culture' and 'Wokery' is more worthy of QAnon adherents, J.D. Vance, or Putin than a balanced and reasonable writer. Murray hoped that Elon Musk would, as 'the new owner of Twitter… clean that seeing cesspit of lies and intolerance.' 

Look at everything Elon Musk has done since, and continues to do in 2025 as the Wormtongue to Trump's Theoden. How poorly Murray's remark has aged! 

A suitable quotation from Murray's beloved Twitter (before Musk renamed it)

In this same farewell note, Murray thanks the 'unstinting encouragement' he received from others 'despite their positions within their companies'. The fact that this only reinforces his position as part of a wider, entrenched problem within the whiskey industry has eluded Murray. Like his critics, Murray's supporters are also left nameless and unnumbered. 

Remember, this is all about one man's descriptions of a luxury drink. He claims to 'fight for freedom of expression and thought'. Clearly, the new Orwell walks among us, I thought. However, Murray's rant was so on-the-nose that he unironically made this comparison himself:

“As Orwell warned, keep repeating a falsehood enough times… and a lie becomes the truth… Free thought and speech must prevail.”

Murray is hopelessly out of his depth here, surrounded by a vocabulary better understood by Gen Z readers. He ends up, similar to many conservatives, describing a world where everyone else is a Woke Snowflake yet he is simultaneously a permanent victim. In Tjeder's scathing but accurate words, 'a whole lot of men cry their shaking and trembling hearts out about others being overly sensitive'. Whiskey Sponge is even more stark on this point:

“This is not an issue of freedom of speech. Nor is it, as Murray suggests, an attack upon freedom of thought – this is hyperbolic, intellectually bankrupt horseshit of the highest magnitude. Murray is free to continue to self-publish his book with whatever content he pleases.”

Conclusion

However much he inflates his own importance, Murray should not be seen as the architect of sexism in the whiskey industry. He is simply a representative example of these problems, and he seems to be unwilling to reject this position. The writing and reactions above reflect Murray as part of an old guard, in which conservative men gate-keep whiskey and make life harder for others in this space.

The 2024 and 2025 Whiskey Bibles have been written and released without issue. Goodness knows what he included in the forewords and farewell notes of those - I will not be checking. If they contain notable reversals of his earlier positions, I'll be happy to hear it! But I won't be buying an edition anytime soon myself. 

In short, Murray remains successful. His review scores still grace distillery websites across the world, providing further evidence that those who yell about being 'canceled' rarely see any kind of real and lasting consequence. I have no illusion that this will make Murray change his ways, or indeed that he will ever read it. Instead, I hope that more people within the whiskey world see this and re-evaluate their thoughts about the W.B. and, in the process, sexism within the whiskey world. 

In particular, I see many European distilleries quoting Murray's score of their whiskeys - not just somewhere in their marketing, but as the leading point persuading whiskey lovers to try their dram. I understand the value of free marketing, but I would urge these distilleries to move past this as soon as possible. I hope that my analysis of the inconsistent, self-aggrandizing, and regressive aspects of Murray's work above are evidence enough that his validation is not worth seeking. 

In contrast, Scotland seems to be one of the few places where Paskin's comments have indeed had lasting effects. Much of the Scotch whiskey industry made approving noises back in 2020 - Glenfiddich, Chivas, Beam Suntory, and the SWA all made statements aligned with Paskin's critiques. Furthermore, the Whiskey Exchange stopped stocking the WB, and credit to them, it's still not there . They have 76 other books on whisky, which you should check out instead!

Scottish women certainly haven't forgotten about Murray. Ailsa Sheldon mentions his 2020 callout when writing about the state of women in the whiskey industry. 

• When Murray was throwing his verbal tantrum in 2020, OurWhisky Foundation analyzed social media posts and found 228% more images of men than women.
• She cites OurWhisky's work ( with photographers Jo Hanley and Christina Kernohan ) to create a library of free-to-use images, making it easier and cheaper to show women enjoying whiskey alongside articles, blogs, and in all places where it was previously likely to be a man. 

An example from the OurWhisky photo bank

(credit to OurWhisky Foundation and Christina Kernohan)

I'd like to end with a final quote from Whiskey Sponge:

“It is not men like Murray who get to decide whether they are sexist – if many women consider your actions and writings misogynist or sexist then that should be enough to catalyze reflection and humility…

Listen to women who work in this industry for an endless and dispiriting series of tales about everyday sexism and a job that all too often pits them at the coal face of toxic masculinity.”