This is a fairly run of the mill violent action that doesn't represent any hatred or dislike of women. It isn't sexist.

Wikipedia would disagree:

In feminist film theory, it has become a byword for the negative archetype of the vulnerable woman requiring male rescue; in the first episode, for example, Pauline is bound and gagged and left in a burning building until a man saves her. However, the character of Pauline was also distinctive in her time as an unmarried New Woman who was free to engage in adventure, and her adventures proved themselves an early commercial success, primarily among women film audiences.

Continuing:

It is an action designed to strike fear and to strike down, not a silly part of a comedy/drama.

The argument at the heart of this disagreement is intent. It is intended to be an homage to a film serial from the tail end of the Wild West era. That was 100 years ago, however, a full six years before women's suffrage in the United States. And unfortunately for apologists everywhere, "it was kosher 100 years ago" is an argument that seldom holds water.

Secondly, the only controversial issue with feminism and this move is that it is representative of women needing saving.

No, it awards the player for murdering a woman for the crime of being a woman. It may not make you uncomfortable, but it certainly disquiets me. It appears I'm not alone.

We shouldn't be protecting women against being attacked, killed, etc, in fictional media. No more than we do men.

We also shouldn't condone actions that fit societal paradigms from 100 years ago. The Klu Klux Klan example, for example, is obviously wrong to you.

Anything is a valid discussion. The thing I'm saying is that it's not a valid point.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken.