“Thus economic categories express different production relations among people and the social functions which correspond to them, or the social economic form of things. These functions or forms have a social character because they are inherent, not in things as such, but in things which are parts of a definite social environment, namely things through which people enter into certain production relations with each other.” (I.I. Rubin, Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value)
— there is an economic incentive to objectify/be objectified, created and sustained by unequal social conditions – the regulation/control of women within heterosexist societies attempt to deny women their autonomy of managing their own bodies and sexualities.
— Estranged labour (per Marx’s 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts) describes system of private property is supported by exploited alienated labor. Women’s bodies (under systems of objectification) become products of exchange – even though women’s work sustains the product (containing objectified human labor), women do not “own” their own bodies – fragmenting their senses of self, “work” (here, sexuality and gender?), and others.
— Intersecting systems of oppression (RGS) overlap with class exploitation to support each other. Thus, as raced, gendered, and sexual bodies are subjected to similar power systems as in those of class. However, RGS may provide particular nuances of how this relationship plays out.
Outline loosely provided by: https://chaka85.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/the-loss-of-the-body-a-marxist-feminist-response-to-estranged-labor/