So if your nation suddenly declared that men were (for example) required to cover their faces at all times and stay indoors unless escorted by a woman, you'd respect that cultural point of view and not protest?
If you're going to say that that's not a matter of violating your "human rights," but just the rights that you think people should have, please explain how those are different things.
To argue for something politically I am not mentally tied to that concept (obvious problem is how human rights were introduced in the first place if there was no conception of human rights), for example looking at the morality (which is not synonymous with notion of rights), the practicality or utility of a given problem or just plain personal preference.
I believe that in the end any "right" is just a privilege, there's nothing that makes them 'happen' by themselves. Surely enough, you can strip every "human right" away even if they're declared to be inalienable and before modern times, there were plenty of regimes that violated them. If they exists as something independent of western conceptions of thought, how come they were not a thing until now? The history is much longer than the 200 or so years that they have existed in our minds.
Do you perhaps have some method by which you discover new human rights?
In a sense it's true, the western way of thinking is being exported and is dominating 'foreign' patterns of thought, subjugating cultures to one dominant, economizing mode of being.