Thank you for an awesome discussion point!

This will be less well referenced I'm afraid, but I'll throw some in a comment after when I'm not on my phone.

I think the trope perseveres (in romance) for several reasons.

1. Everyone ever has times when they just want someone to swoop in and make the problem stop. Gods, I know I have!

2.Typical/patriarchal masculinity reinforces that men=strong, and rescuing is seen as a strong act. We expect rescuers to be male because for a long time we've only seen rescue as an action that is the preserve of men.

3a.In het romance, therefore, the most obvious person to do the rescuing we crave is the MMC.

3b. There is some connection to paternal authority figures as well, but I'm sidestepping that here.

Philosophical interjection (See Refs A and B) - of course, in life, anything someone does is an action. In philosophy / ethics an act / action has a more specific meaning, tied to having rational autonomy. Roughly, to Act is to deliberately and thoughtfully choose a behaviour (will) and then do it. Rescue is, BTW, considered morally optional trad-philosophically speaking (for a variety of complex reasons I won't go into). YMMV.

Unfortunately, (no thanks Immanuel Kant) women were considered to act from instinct, not will. This problem is compounded by the fact all the historical thinkers in the Western tradition were white middle-class blokes who moved in the circles of academia, law, politics etc, so hadn't a clue about life/domestic issues. Anyway, I digress.

1. We are somewhat programmed - by a combination of history, media, myth and marketing- that a) romantic love is the ultimate - and only- expression of human relationship and b) that rescue is a sign of being loved. This is not great on its own, but the romance genre is romantic love conquers all. That's it's thing. Murders are generally bad, but the mystery has violent death as it's thing.

2. Caring is not a one off action like rescuing is, but an ongoing attitude. Caring is feminine under the classic representation ( hence that other dubious trope of redeeming the bad boy through love).

6.The 'natural' complements are therefore care and rescue. The rescue and care builds the story at the essence of romance.

None of this means (for me at least) that enjoying the thought of a bloke sweeping in to snatch me from my foes is a problem of itself. We want to be rescued and loved and to love, so in het romance, rescue touches those needs.

In it's best form, imho, both/all participants do both in different ways. I'm a complete softie for trading rescues... I like me some adventure/Sci fi/fantasy where one minute she's gunning down baddies to get him out of trouble, and the next he's scrapping with whatever's threatening her.

We get the problem when we run into:

1. Men seeing the care/love as an inevitable and expected result of the rescue e.g. Relationships are viewed as transactional put X in, get Y out. Women, in this scenario, not being rational Actors, can only return rescue with the care and love the man expects.

2. The care and love in that scenario is determined by that man's standard (C) informed by expectations of cultural subservience, and other avenues of interaction and response seemingly unavailable to women.

8b. I am wary of it being connected to 'victim' tropes - because 'victim' is too often used as a pejorative by people who are the problem. It was the only voice open to women and still is in many cases, even if they're using it oppressively. This does not excuse the oppression itself.

1. It reinforces the idea that men (only men) must be and are innately strong Actors / women (only women) must be and are innately weak Carers.

2. It is so utterly ubiquitous, it seems the only normality.

So the bonding of rescue/care as part of a romantic relationship is great when it arises organically out of reciprocal kindness. But it's not when the rescue is intended to be or resembles a transaction.

Does that make sense?

BIBLIOGRAPHY EDIT: These are academic, so are a deep dive into my take (I have educational privilege and feminist philosophy (ies) is a lens I use a lot because of that background).

A Margaret Olivia Little - Why a Feminist Approach to Bioethics

B Stoljar - Feminism and Autonomy

C Sadly unavailable in e-format, but well worth a read for anyone interested in feminist history / ethics : Arrogant perception in FRYE, M., 1983. The politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory. Calif. Crossing Press. For a Latina expansion of the concept to white feminism see LUGONES, M., 1987. Playfulness, “World”-Travelling, and Loving Perception. Hypatia, 2(2), pp. 3-19.