yes he (they, he and she in my opinion) created woman first, look at the facts men have nipples explain that, the fact that men are genetically XY and women are XX. plus theoretically women could exist on there own because they are able to give birth. in fact we are all women until the male hormones kick in and we become men.
there’s probably more but first let me know what you think. 
That is some really deep thinking. But I have a different theory:
There’s no Abrahamic god, and religion is bullshit.
so what do you believe then ehh?
This seems more likely to represent trends in evolution then an intelligent design placing women first.
_Leavitt.
I’ve been told that Eve is, in fact, a creaturely representative of God. Eve is Adam’s “helper”, and the only time this language of “helper” comes up in the Bible is in reference to God. i.e., it is always God who “helps”. If this is true, that the essence of the feminine is divine, then woman indeed comes before man. Interestingly though, woman means “out of man”, so that woman, with this thinking, would be both before and after man… (Again, the tracings of the divine…)
Lastly, to further support my case, representing God through female characters is not unheard of. In Revelation, God is a woman, i.e., a “bride”. In Proverbs wisdom is a woman…
Typically speaking, the female construct (or what we would identify as being similar in function to female) comes first in every species type.
If it didn’t…you would never get population.
The typical first step doesn’t require a male; there is no male or female; just reproduction.
Now, by the time Man shows up on Earth, our ancestral line was WAY beyond this part of microbe evolution.
It was a mutation of previous that brought about man, so there really isn’t a first MAN or first WOMAN that then caused the other…chances are fairly strong, that the first of either were not directly near each other on the planet, or directly at the same time.
Domino effect doesn’t work in parallel; it works in sequence.
Some people believe that the creature first described as “Man” was made in God’s image in that it was made as a “human”, ie. a combination of both sexes. It would then follow that both male and female could be created/seperated from it, similar to the Biblical description which reduces this process to the removal of a rib.
In face, Genesis One supports this, it seems to me…
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created man in [God’s] own image,
in the image of God [God] created [man];
male and female [God] created them.
I have removed the gender reference to God (which in Hebrew do not exist, kinda). If we understand “man” here to be “humankind” (which I think is arguably valid in the Hebrew version) then this theory holds true.
Dont you think?
Never can God create a woman first, if God create a woman first then he must be hungry for sex and after creating the woman he we have sex with her. God create a woman for Adam to have sex with.
Let’s hope they got married first or they’d be living in sin. 
I’m with Rouzbeh, and stumps, basically asexual reproduction came first and then sexual reproduction thrived because asexual reproduction is pretty much cloning and is less adaptive. End of story. What came first the amoeba or man or woman? It doesn’t matter in the slightest to anyone presumably anywhere.