At the point where 80% of the board room is men, you have to assume qualified women are being passed up at some point and it's not a meritocracy.

Uh, no you don't. It might simply be that men are better at that kind of job, maybe because they're more competitive or more willing to sacrifice their family life for the sake of the company. You shouldn't automatically assume sexism in any situation where there's a disparity between the sexes. Remember that men and women are different. If 9 out of 10 nurses are women, it's not because of anti-male biases.

Additionally, less-qualified men are being promoted over more-qualified women.

Sorry but this is just silly. Aside from the fact that women seem to actually be favoured in the selection process, companies are profit-oriented. How can anyone seriously believe that a company wouldn't want to promote the most qualified employees?

Another thing to consider is that our society puts different pressures on men and women, steering them towards different career choices.

Even if we accept that premise, it doesn't justify the implementation of sexist policies that favour women over men.

So to sum it up, in my view we don't live in a meritocracy right now, because a meritocracy would produce closer to a 50/50 representation of men and women in the board room.

That belief rests on the assumption that men and women are exactly the same, think and feel the same way, want the same things, etc; which is not true.

You and I both agree that we want a meritocracy, and I think Germany's 30% requirement brings us closer to that goal.

That's nonsense. Affirmative action is the opposite of a meritocratic system.

Lastly, I think you and I have a different definition of what feminism is. To me, feminism isn't represented by extremists, aka "man-haters." For me, feminism means "men and women are equal" and that's it. So I'm a feminist.

You're one of those feminists I wrote about in my post. You say you want equality but you only really care about women.