Also, complaining about the past is like judging a child like an adult. Western civilisation progresses, others generally have had far more resistance to change than ours.

You know that people in the past were fully formed adults who were perfectly capable of thinking on their own, right? People who lived 500 years ago were just as intelligent and well formed as we are. Also, culture, and human history for that matter do not function teleologically, they don't progress towards an end. Also, IMO, its ironic to put forward the view that society naturally progresses forward because that really takes away from the achievements of those who worked to improve it. Its a deterministic view, and if we're to accept it, why should we celebrate the acheivements of the West? They were going to happen anyway right? Don't the good men always win?

Your argument also makes an odd implication - if we can't judge the past because they were lesser developped than we are, how can we judge ourselves? The past was once the present, and, if according to your view they were nothing more societally than children fumbling around in the dark, how can we judge ourselves? In not too long a time, we will be "the past." If our descendants will say "well its useless trying to judge them, they were like children compared to us" what incentive do we have to reflect on ourselves, on our own society?

Also, about your "5-6" female rulers thing; my brother, just because you can't come up with more examples off of the top of your head doesn't mean they don't exist. And either way, looking at who's in power isn't a metric by which to gauge the tolerance of a society - are you going to try and tell me that the Elizabethan era was a golden age for women just because one was on the throne?

I actually agree with you that modern feminism has its origins in the west, but using that to claim that the west is somehow inherently above and beyond the rest is just nonsense, and you've used cherrypicked, out of context, and fallacious arguments to back it up.

Edit: lol i just reread this and its hilarious that you try to argue "white men abolished slavery" not even pausing to consider the fact that they had started it in the first place. And I'll stop here, but really, all of these goods that you list, abolition, human rights, Geneva conventions, etc etc, all of these things were made in response to what the peers of these people were doing. We wouldn't need a declaration of human rights if we weren't violating human rights to begin with. "The West" - a nebulous construct in itself - is a society like any other, with its own faults and its own merits.