I don’t have any idea of what might have been said ; someone did define « la femme-bibelot » in a remark on the possible relationships that can exist between man and woman.

• le parisien      Il y a deux sortes de femmes. La femme-bibelot que l’on peut manier, manipuler, embrasser du regard, et qui est l’ornement d’une vie d’homme. Et la femme-paysage. Celle-là on la visite, on s’y engage, on risque de s’y perdre. (Michel Tournier, Artiste, écrivain, Romancier (1924 – 2016))

Il y a la possibilité suivante mais il faut répéter « femme ».

• Oh, ta femme … t’a comme une femme-bibelot…

Considering the insinuation this would be rather strange ; yet you say that the tone was denigratory. I don’t see how, from the idea of a family meal one goes on to the idea of someone being manipulated ; there is no ineluctable conclusion. The tone however was not necessarily true, it could have been mere put on so as to provoque a reaction, but that should have become clear right away. It is also possible that, as this happens sometimes, your colleague never assimilated precisely the exact meaning of « femme-bibelot » and was thinking about something else.

I can’t give you any other inkling to make the word « bibelot » fit into this blank.

Maybe it was comme un coq en pâte ?

Although the usual phrasing is rather être or vivre comme un coq en pâte, which means to be particularly well treated, to be pampered for food, lodging, etc. Plus, it does not have a negative connotation.

J’ai été logé dans une famille d’accueil formidable: j’étais comme un coq en pâte !