The crux of the issue is that it that the west is adamant their way of thinking, their lifestyle and changes to social dynamics is the benchmark of morality for the rest of the world. If a country or a group of people do not agree with a concept, then they are labelled backwards, barbaric and "problematic".

This is a very very narrow way of thinking as morality is not set and owned by the western sphere. Certainly influential but ultimately there is no compulsion in anyone adopting subjective morality.

E.g We see dogs as pets. Some east Asian countries in rural areas see it as food. Who is right and who is wrong? Would it be fair to call them evil and in need of reformation? Why should they? The life they lead is according to their standards. They are certainly in no need of ideological colonisation.

Even the charter for international civil rights is a subjective document of morality which can be changed at will as "morality" changes (for better or for worse). A country not abiding by your social concept of "rights" does not make it immoral nor wrong.

You rights and wrongs have been derived from your family, your education and society. But combining these together in no way shape or form gives authority to dictate morality to people in other societies. Why can't they say the same thing about you?

(I know people will absolutely detest what I am going to say, but hear my thoughts).

The only way objective morality that can be set is by the one who created mankind. (Yes I am talking about theology). This is a rational viewpoint to hold. On a (limited) human level, the manufacturer has full competency and understanding of their products. Rights and wrongs. Do's and don'ts.

This is the morality that humans should submit themselves to. Not at the whims and desires of self, individuals and societies.

Define problematic. According to who and what authority? And follow up question, why should we submit to that authority?

(This is not an attack on you, just a conversation starter)