I may be misunderstanding you. If so, please clarify. I have a few questions about this perspective.
Isn't that saying that any woman who has ever received assistance is a damsel in distress then?
No, I would never say that. These aren't universal, airtight theories. I don't think it applies to every single individual case of helping a woman ever. It's more of a broad social construct that has been in the subtext of society for a very long time. Like the 5 boyfriends that jumped on top of their girlfriends in the Aurora theater shooting, dying by shielding them from bullets. Or the gender distribution of survivors in the Titanic life rafts. Or the gender differences in how we view physical violence.
That's not to say that every single person is bound by this social construct. There's still sexism and misogyny. These are broad things that don't apply to every single case. And it's still really just an abstract theory in the end. Same with most of objectification theory. The flip side of that theory is male disposability being emphasized in every game on her list when the man dies 100s of times in an attempt to save a woman's life. You can really view it either way depending on your ideological leanings.
You are operating under the belief that women are considered more valuable and so any time a woman is helped it is because the helper places her worth above that of man.
No, it's a social construct that doesn't apply to every single case. But you do hear distinctions to this day on the news that separates "women and children" as more valuable (and horrific) casualties than male civilian casualties. That is not new, and I think it's a pretty strong reflection of this social construct. It's a very strong construct that govern decisions of life and death.
If this isn't what you're saying, what makes Anita's case different from someone helping me carry my bags?
I guess I don't really follow. It's kind of related, but not really. It's more of a representation of culture, and etiquette that women shouldn't work at all, even straining to open a door. It's kind of insultingly polite, based in almost equal measure on notions of female worth, and female sexism. I can see how opening a door is a compliment in the man's mind, and an insult in the woman's mind, despite being the exact same action. It depends on the perspective of the person and their ideology.
And what of assistance given to men? Like the various donation drives that have appeared even here on NeoGAF for a man suffering an illness and needing help with medical bills? How is that different?
Men can get assistance too, but I'd argue it is often times less visible and with less sympathy involved. One of the biggest gaps in gender today is the sympathy gap. Feminists usually argue this same point. All of masculine socialization is about "toughening up" and "taking it like a man" which runs counter to asking for help. Many men still don't even go to the doctor unless it's very bad because they feel they can take it.
What of other Kickstarters? When Tim Shafer appealed to us so that he could create his game and we pledged our money in assistance so that Double Fine could continue on?
What of discussions defending specific developers? Or journalists? Someone may say, "Iwata is faking his illness and hospitalization and should be fired". And many come speak in his defense. Is Mr. Iwata a damsel in distress? If not, what is different in that situation?
I don't really know where you're going with these, and I'm running out of energy replying.
What needed to be different in Anita's situation to make it so she is not considered a damsel in distress to you?
Nothing. It's not up to her to decide. These are social constructs that motivate people to even sacrifice their own life. She has no power to erase it or prevent it from influencing how people act. It doesn't mean it will be the only thing that influences people, and it doesn't mean it's universally effective on everyone. I'm talking about broad, generalized cultural themes.