there is no definitive proof of these types of behaviors being intrinsic "woman nature".

Depends what you mean by definitive proof. If your standard for definitive proof is some kind of mathematical theorem that can be derived from first principles with 100% certainty, then no, there is no proof. But that's not really how the scientific method works. You generally formulate a hypothesis, look for evidence, investigate competing hypotheses, etc. and through a process of elimination, reach a conclusion that is provisionally "true". The evidence for human nature comes from multiple disciplines (biology, evopsych, endocrinology, neuroscience, etc.). On male/female nature, you can look cross-culturally, from hunter-gatherers to people living in industrialized societies, and if you notice commonalities in all of them (hypergamy, female choosiness / male eagerness, consistent standards of attractiveness, etc.) chances are that something other than culture is afoot. You can even look at the behavior of different species (chimpanzees, etc.) and compare it to that of humans, and while cross-species comparisons are never perfect, the similarities are insightful when you consider that the other species has no culture at all.

You can't possibly exclude the fact that history and social policy has a profound effect on minorities and other sects of people.

I'm not excluding it. What I'm saying is that history, social policy, etc. aren't fundamental. They're manifestations of underlying biological realities. You can think of them as pieces of software that run on the same underlying operating system and hardware. You can no more change the culture to change behavior than you can change the software on a computer to change the hardware. The kinds of cultures that are possible are determined by the biology of the humans in question, just as the kinds of software that can be run on a computer are determined by the hardware. I highly recommend Colttaine's video Biology, Culture, Ideology for an in-depth explanation. Basically, Colttaine traces feminism to two changes that occurred in the "biology" of humans: mechanization and effective birth control, which led to a "cultural" manifestation in the form of feminism.

For example, East European women are vastly different than North American women. The people on here yelling "AWALT" are not wrong, there are probably many core values that women share, but they diverge quite dramatically also.

And what happens when you bring an Eastern European woman to the West? She generally adopts the same behavior as the local women (there are exceptions, but for each exception there are countless stories of men who brought their submissive, feminine, Eastern European or South-East Asian wives to the West, and saw them transform into the same entitled feminists that they were trying to escape).

Finally, if feminism is the root cause for feminine behavior, it doesn't absolve anyone of anything. It simply shows the willingness of women to embrace these ideologies.

For a tradcon or white nationalist, it does absolve women. If women are "tricked" into feminism by some nefarious conspiracy of Jews / Cultural Marxists, then all we have to do is "defeat the left" and we'll go back to the idyllic 1950's of the white picket fence and nuclear family. The question is, why are women so eager to embrace these ideologies whenever they have the opportunity to do so, if they're not fundamentally compatible with some aspects of their nature?

You think men are so perfect?

I didn't say they were, and male nature is off-topic anyway.