is that view/teaching biblical, that only men are created in the image of God, and women are not?
This is actually an explicit teaching of Scripture in the
direct sense (that is to say being made directly in the image of God, as opposed to indirectly), which is what some mean when they say something along these lines, and it is unfortunate that our present culture will make that difficult to digest even though anything of God should be accepted humbly and thankfully, because all things exist the way they do ultimately for our own good (our best good being that God glorify Himself, but that is a loaded post for another time).
While Genesis 1:27 in isolation may not seem to be obviously indicating man's primacy in imaging God, Paul exposits this account to be unequivocally communicating that truth in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9:
"For a man ought not to cover his head, since
he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."
The following verses go on to admonish humility despite this fact, reminding us that we are the
image of God, not God Himself. However, being the direct image of God affords a distinct honour and responsibility that must be respected. Hence why the woman is commanded to not only submit to but reverence her husband (Ephesians 5:33, the word for reverence being
phobos from which we derive the word phobia, which is to fear; in the context, the fear being that which comes from a high respect of the position that God has granted the man).
Woman possesses the image of God, but does so indirectly through the man, since she is made in man's image and man in God's. If you are thinking after the pattern of Christ (Philippians 2:5-8, Romans 12:2) then this should bother as much as a man is warranted to be bothered by being only made in the image of God and not being God Himself. God reserves His glory for Himself and does not share it (Isaiah 48:11), and expects man not to arrogantly pursue it to his own hurt (Genesis 11:4-8). Likewise, God reserves man's distinct position for himself and expects him not to share it nor the woman to pursue it to her own hurt (Isaiah 3:12, 1 Peter 3:5-6).
"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:5-8)
If the Son of God incarnate, the very
Lord of glory (James 2:1) can submit and show humility, I think we ought to hold women to the same standard considering Christ only behaved humble (Matthew 26:53-54) despite being Lord of heaven and earth, but humans are humbled by their very nature and whether they enjoy it or not (Luke 14:11). I see the OP does not dispute anything regarding submission, but that is not the point of designating the need for submission and humility in this context. Those points are auxiliary to confronting the issue of pride that causes women to suppress the understanding of their humble position before men that would cause them to despise the idea that man is more directly representative of God and she is more directly representative of man and the nature of man's relation to God.
There is much to say about the distinct function, beauty and glory of the
godly woman's role, but it is unnecessary in the grand scheme of present ministry to elevate the woman in her mind
every time you mention her need for humility.
(hopefully), so the new creation does matter (very much): Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:a]">[a] The old has gone, the new is here! - Obviously the old is not completely gone yet, since we still dwell in this mortal body, but that will change as well, and there will be really nothing left of the old creation (if I am not mistaken 
