Bruce Ware state this myth thusly:
“Man is the image of God directly, woman is the image of God only through the man… Because man was created by God in His image first, man alone was created in a direct and unmediated fashion as the image of God, manifesting then the glory of God in man, that is male man… If male headship is rooted in the image of God itself, then it isn’t just a functional distinction of how we work out. It really does mean we are made in a different way.
It may be best to understand the original creation of male and female as one in which the male was made in the image of God in a direct, unmediated and unilateral fashion, while the female was made image of God through the man and hence in a indirect, mediated and derivative fashion.” – Bruce Ware
Firstly, this is not in the Bible. Here is what the Bible directly say:
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Yes, Adam was made first, and then Eve from Him. But being made first does not translate to being made directly in God’s image, while the second is less so.
Secondly, it is not a logical conclusion: Here are a few examples:
> A baker bakes some cookies. He makes dough first, and then he bakes (derives) the cookies from the dough. Could we say that dough is more in the image of what the cook wanted to make, and baked cookies less so? Not at all.
> A writer writes a story in which one of the characters Anne-Marie Roestoff, pretty much reflect her own way of thinking. She later writes another book featuring Mrs. Roestoff, building onto what her readers already know about the woman from the first book. Could you say that the first book’s Anne-Marie Roestoff is more like the writer, while the second is only like her in so much as it derives from the first? Of course not. The writer could put the same amount of herself, or more, into how the character acts in the second book.
Thirdly, it leads to unscriptural practices and messages, because it tells women their identity is found in man, not God.
Biblical Personhood 
Comments on: "Myth: “Woman is the derivative image of God and man the direct image”" (3)
The human male is a DERIVATIVE FEMALE: the biblical story is a metaphor for embryonic biology. The human female is the standard human. The human embryo must BECOME male from its originally female state. The male penis is an elongated clitoris, etc.
from Wikipedia article on sexual differentiation in the human embryo:
Defeminization and masculinization are the differentiating processes that a fetus goes through to become male. From this perspective, the female is the default path for a developing human being in that gene actions that are eliminated and that are necessary for formation of female genitalia lead to the development of external male genitalia.
Biologically, this perspective is supported by the fact that there are neither female genes nor female hormones that correspond to the hormones active in males only. Estrogen, for instance, is present in both the male and female fetus.
female-XX
male XY
female- the standard human
male- the deviation from the standard
Every human male was once a female. Every male human being had to change into a male from his original femaleness.
LikeLike
Female humans can reproduce. Male humans can only produce through a relationship with a particular woman. Women need sperm and a little luck if they want to produce a child. Men have access to children only through women, an access which can be denied by women. Children are the products of women’s bodies and belong (in so far as a human can belong to another in the sense of decision-making) to them exclusively. Women need not identify the origin of the sperm they acquire.
LikeLike
If anything, the Woman is God twice refined. But I would not “lord” that over a man. God so often choose the youngest, not the oldest, anyway. Birth order didn’t seem to mean as much to God as it does to humans.
LikeLike