Back in the day, why were women basically a man's property, but it was still "women and children first" in an emergency situation?

It was considered that men had a duty to protect women as the weaker sex. And certainly among upper and middle class people in particular, there were rituals  like a man always standing up if a woman came into the room, or raising his hat to her if they met in the street.  Certainly a wife was in theory expected to defe to her husband (though of course it didn’t always turn out like that).  But men were supposed to look after their wives and protect them from harm.   But I don’t think ‘women and children first’ was ever an official policy on ships.  In fact I would say that keeping families together would have been better.

Offspring are important. Charles Darwin said "sexual selection depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring."

It has to do with the role that men were meant to play. From the beginning, man was created to have dominion over the animals. Women were meant to be a companion, but also subservient to men.

This shouldn't be construed to equate women with animals or property, only to add emphasis to the idea that by providing for her and protecting her, the role of taking responsibility falls on the man - women were not intended to be at the top of the hierarchy.

The term "property" in this sense shouldn't be taken in a disrespectful manner. It is meant as the dominion for which he is responsible. And this responsibility includes protecting those who are less able to protect themselves - thus connecting the idea of "women and children first".

'Back in the day' was different from the 'olden days'  There were fierce wars between those who supported the 'olden days' and those who wished to remain 'Back in the day'.

They didn't put them first. They jumped the line several times, including in the Titanic sinking. People lie and posture to make themselves look noble, but watch what they do, not what they say.,

"Back in the day" women were generally NOT seen as "property" like a pair of pants, or a horse, or even a slave might be.  Society saw relationships between married women and men were hierarchical, with the man in charge of the relationship and given wide latitude to maintain order and priorities in the relationship.  In practice women exercised varying degrees of power.

As for your "life boat" example, societies also have the biological imperative to save the gene pool for the future, since only women can produce offspring and children are the offspring they got priority.  Societies that practiced "men first" did not survive many disasters.

They weren't "basically a man's property", because the man couldn't sell, lease, or mortgage them. They were a liability, not a property. 

They were the man's *financial responsibility*. This was an arrangement that UNEQUALLY BENEFITTED WOMEN just as feminism unequally benefits them. The women lived at the man's expense. 

It wasn't the case that women were considered less than men. If it was, they would have been last in the lifeboats, wouldn't they? 

The fact that men had an obligation to support women, and made sure the men were sacrificed to save the women, means the exact opposite is true. The women were considered more valuable, such that their lives were considered more important - obviously - and their comfort and security were considered more important than a man's - obviously. 

This is the premise of feminism as well, which is why the gender deaths at work gap is 95% men, and you have never seen a feminist raise the slightest protest about it. And it's why men still have their traditional gender roles and patriarchal stereotypes - to support women - forced on them, and you have never seen a feminist raise the slightest protest about that. 

So you need to be able to distinguish what is true from what is false, it is simply false that women were ever the property of men, except in feminists' propaganda. 

I think because they can bear children and so were quite important too. Like if anything bad were to happen, we'll want to save our important documents/belongings too so maybe it was like that back then

In a house fire you try to protect your most valuable property.

The principle of 'Women and children first' was established in 1852 when the troop ship Birkenhead, carrying 634 men, women and children was holed by an uncharted rock. Many were drowned as they slept but others managed to struggle on deck. Only a few life boats could be lowered, because the lowering equipment was clogged with paint, but eventually three boats were launched and seven women and thirteen children were rowed away from the wreck. The ship's captain then shouted that any man that could swim should jump into the sea and make for the boats, but the soldiers' commanding officer, realising that this would swamp the boats and drown the occupants, ordered the men to stand fast. Many of them were inexperienced recruits, but they did stand fast, the women and children were rowed away, to be picked up by the schooner Lioness - she went on to pick up any survivors from the Birkenhead, but many had drowned, or been taken by sharks.

"Women and children first" is called 'the Birkenhead drill."

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Women-Childr...

Edit answer to inquire where Dave (1465) who presumably thinks he is quoting the Bible, can find anything about man being intended to tell women what to do?

Genesis 1:27:

"And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them."

"Man" here clearly means human, and the text says humans were created, like the animals, male and female. It does not add "But, hey, the males were actually supposed to be in charge and tell the females what to do because that's how it's supposed to be." It isn't. And it wasn't. It was just:

"Male and female he created them."