What Whisky/Whiskey are we drinking this month?

To be honest, no, I don't think she gives a fair assessment of Jim Murray or his writing.

I suspect her goal is to generate some publicity and discussion, and she's succeeded in that, as off the back of your post I did go and read her comments.

She criticises Murray on the grounds that his writing in the Whisky Bible is 'sexist' and 'vulgar'.

To me the two are quite distinct.

To be 'vulgar' is somewhat subjective. Many great writers are vulgar (Stephen King is the one that always springs to mind for me, he's obsessed with bodily processes). I think some of my colleagues are vulgar, but they probably think I've got a stick up my arse. Someone might think me talking about a stick up my arse is itself vulgar...

Anyway, She criticises Murray's 'explicit language'... Actually, I think by most people's standards he's not that explicit and if even the material she quotes strikes anyone as risqué or perverted then I guess I must have a higher threshold than I thought. She's also cherry-picked less than 40 references from a Whisky Bible that has hundreds and hundreds of entries, so ... I'm not even sure he's that vulgar, really.

But anyway, if she thinks that vulgar journalism in the whisky community should be policed, then... I'm sorry, I just don't agree, it's very reactionary.

To be 'sexist' is, it is fair to say, more objectively wrong.

It's true that Murray writes freely about sex and that metaphor is a common one for him. But does that make him sexist? I'd argue not, actually. It might make him come across as a bit cringeworthy or like your uncool dad making reference to how hot your mum was back in the day... But I don't believe he crosses the line into creepiness or objectification.

He does mention seduction, but funnily enough it's in the context of seducing or being seduced by "the woman in your life". Err, that's pretty wholesome, actually! Married people in relationships are OK to engage in a bit of seduction last time I checked, as long as it's not with someone outside the relationship.

In fairness to her I don't think she makes any reference to him being misogynistic or perverted, which you mention in your post.

The closing argument is that his language cements the idea that whisky is a 'man's drink' and does damage to the broadening of whisky's appeal, progress within the community and so on. To be honest Murray won't be to everyone's taste, but absurd to claim the choice of language and use of sex as a metaphor in his tiny little reference book casts such a long shadow. She must have a pretty poor assessment of womens' ability to stand up for themselves, but really I just question whether she's not tilting at windmills here. This ample nonsense and unacceptable behaviour out there, this just isn't it.

Last thing to say: I'm actually not that big a fan of Murray's. I have a few of his Bibles and I did order 2021, but I read them more for entertainment than necessarily taking him as Whisky God (Which presumably the author of the Whisky Bible would be).