Nope. But Christianity, unlike Islam, is not predicated upon the oppression women. Christian warriors were writing love poetry to the feminine ideals while the Moslem hordes were rampaging, looting and abducting women throughout the world. Had Mohammed not been able to pay of his boys with loot and babes his "religion" would have quickly disappeared joining the countless other heresies on the dustheap.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say. To compare 19th Century America or Europe to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan is (in my opinion) profoundly fallacious.
It's true that women's economic and social options were more limited 150 years ago - but so were men's. In a country where 85% of the population was involved in agriculture, people didn't have time for repression: they had to get up and milk the cows and get food cooked on a wood or coal stove, and then do the wash by hand, or haul hay bales by hand, or hand-pick tobacco, and so on.
Modern economic success has changed many things, for better or worse. There's no reason that it has to lead to population decline, however. I have a college degree and live in the suburbs with a husband who's an electrical engineer - and the homeowners' association doesn't allow livestock :-) - and eight children.
In the old days of farming, no antibiotics or anesthesia, childbearing was high-risk, low-return proposition. Check out all the little children's grave markers in any cemetery. Nowadays, giving birth is safer than driving to the Wal-mart, and almost all the babies live to adulthood. It seems to me that those factors could fuel a trend toward more children, rather than none.