That's the great thing about the French Revolution: it's really difficult to answer with a straightforward "yes or no," thus allowing for questions like this (and many others!) to allow for 200+ years of dynamic historiography!
We certainly can give "an" answer here, though! I'll break this into two main sections: first, we'll quickly touch on the "patchwork" nature of pre-revolutionary France; second, we'll look at the peasants (aka the "rural population") both in the pre-Revolutionary period, and throughout the course of the Revolution to gauge their level of involvment, support of, and opposition to, the Revolution.
I. The Patchwork Nature of Pre-Revolutionary France
"France" was not wholly "French" before the "French" Revolution. Some territories, particularly in the northeast, had only been acquired as "French" possessions within the past hundred-or-so years before the Revolution; territories such as these shared a king, but little else, with those in say the extreme southeast of France, where often French wasn't spoken as a primary language--in some instances wasn't spoken at all. I go more into detail on this question in my first comment on this post, where I'm answering whether the Revolution was a "net positive" for the peasantry. I'd recommend checking that out for more background, but we'll suffice it to say here than any answer is going to necessarily be applicable to only certain parts of France--the loose "patchwork quilt" of territories knitted together over centuries of conquest were richly diverse, and local peculiarities had a lot to do with an individual peasant's feelings about the Revolution.
II. The Peasants & the Revolution
(a): Background on the Peasants
The peasants (a word coming from the French paysan) constituted the overwhelming majority of France circa-1789; estimates vary, by 90-5% is a workable number to keep in mind. The group specifically referred to as the peasants where those who worked the land: the typical agricultural worker, laboring alongside his wife and children from dawn-til-dusk to eek out a living tending to his own fields (if he was lucky) or as a hired hand on someone else's land. In the latter case, the most he might have would be a garden, out of which he could grow some limited crops to supplement his income.
I'll mention it in passing, but the French diet for the lower classes consisted almost exclusively of bread; a typical day's meal would consist of roughly two pounds of bread, often mixed with water & any vegetables you could get your hands on once the bread began to harden or go bad. France was wholly dependent upon a successful wheat harvest; attempts to introduce the potato in the 1780s had stalled out, due to the nature of subsistence farming: when you're living on the brink of starvation, you cannot take any risks. Therefore the French lower classes were chained to wheat production, and survived or perished along with the wheat crops in the field.
The pre-Revolutionary "satisfaction metric" of the peasants is, of course, impossible to gauge as a whole. Some areas--particularly more isolated rural areas such as Brittany--had maintained a more typical "feudal structure" in which the local provincal noble stayed in his ancestral estates, lording over his demense (estate lands) personally; in these cases, the paternal, or "client-patron" feudal ties that had linked Medieval Europe together still often existed--if your local lord wasn't a complete jerk, that is. A peasant in a community with a benevolent local lord, who dutifully provided for the infrastructure of the village (helping maintain the local parish church, for example); who was not too liberal with his rights & priviledges (we'll touch on those shortly); and who set out a good spread of food for the peasantry come feast days, were generally well tolerated, or even beloved going into the Revolution. You could easily flip all of those examples, though, and wiitness local hatreds of a local tyrant (think the nobleman in A Tale of Two Cities).
One last important note here, is that the sliding scale between love & hate wasn't actually the only option: absentee nobles were quite common in many areas, typically in larger cities or towns. We all know the famous story: Louis XIV built Versailles, and compelled the more important nobles of the realm to come to him, away from any potential "base of power" on their ancestral estates. Many other nobles who did not live full-time at Versailles (few did) had residences in Paris, and might return to their provincal estates a few times a year at most, or not at all--in this latter case, they'd rely on estate managers to run the system in their stead. These estate managers were often far more zealous and exacting in their management than the nobles had been (once again think of the peasants' hatred for the aptly named Gabelle in A Tale of Two Cities); thus not only did the peasants not personally know their local "Jacques-Pierre Marie Whatever, Baron d'Our Lands," they only knew him through Mr. Scrooge, his humorless proxy who never took it easy on exacting their "feudal dues."
(b): The Cahiers de doléances & Peasant complaints
These "feudal dues," along with the corpus of "rights & priviledges" enjoyed by the nobility on the eve of the Revolution, are crucial to understanding what exactly the peasants wanted to come out of 1789. Amazingly, we have a record of local complaints going into the Estates General of 1789: the Cahiers de doléances, essentially written lists of grievances and requests that each locality was tasked with writing up, combining, and bringing alongside their representatives from the three estates. Now naturally in this process some of the more "quaint" requests were blotted out by the delegates and elites who wished to present their own grievances (or who were the target of lower-class complaints); however, we can amazingly see that many of the peasant demands were maintained within the Cahiers; many of the third estate delegates lent their pens to the illeterate groups (Robespierre helped write up the Cahiers of the Arras Cobbler's Guild) and therefore we can see what the peasants wanted changed on the cusp of Revolution.
Overwhelmingly, peasant or lower-class complaints (or at least third estate representations of their complaints) were in regard to the criss-crossing array of onerous rights & privledges they "owed" to their feudal lord. Eighteenth century peasants had many millstones round their necks: noble hunting rights meant that a peasant caught "poaching"--killing animals of the forests, such as deer--would be hung, an offense doubly egregious since these herds of deer often trampled & ate crops in the fields; the corvee was a force-labor requirement, whereupon the lord could call upon the peasants for X number of days of work each year to maintain the local infrastructure--often fixing the road to and from his chateau or other self-interested projects; the noble's right to the means of production in village life meant that as a peasant, you had to use your local nobleman's winepress and grain mill, there was no competition.
Outside of these reserved rights, there were the bevy of taxes and feudal dues (often in-kind, meaning "give me X bushels of wheat) that were due to ALL levels of society: the church (the tithe), the monarchy (various taxes, highly dependent on where you lived), and then vestigal dues to a local lord that may still be required of you. Heaped atop this already crushing weight were the sheer number of indirect taxes, often hitting the peasants on goods of consumption. None was more hated than the infamous (and lucretive) gabelle, a tax on salt--a staple good as it allowed for preservation of the already scarce meat, along with other foods.
So the peasants, on the eve of the Revolution, could generally be said to be unhappy with the state of the kingdom; they suffered greatly in the years leading up to the Revolution from famine, and felt that the "paternal economy," by which their lords and King were supposed to protect them as parents protect their children, seemed to them a broken promise.
(contd. in following comment...)