There's almost no point in responding here if your grasp of the English language is so weak that "preferably one with a history of advocacy for marginalized people and communities" reads to you as "qualifications totally optional". It's just straight up you not knowing how to read on top of your idiotic assumption that surely there are no qualified women for a board position. It probably also stems from your total ignorance about what a board of directors even does, much less what the qualifications to be on one entails. Go on and tell me what YOU think the qualifications for serving on the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors should be.
If you had any clue then you'd at least understand that it shouldn't be very difficult at all to find a woman who is fully capable of serving on a board and why the focus on recruiting a woman is in no way shape or form an example of discrimination. Any new member is going to undergo training to be brought up to speed with the current board structure and governance issues, and board members for a company like Activision Blizzard will receive additional training and education throughout their appointment on the board. No single member is going to be an expert on every facet of the business that a board oversees, which is why most of them are spread out over various committees and having a diverse group has been proven to be beneficial in pooling a varied range of experience and expertise. Age, sex, nationality, race, etc aren't the only things that bring new perspectives to a group, but they do matter.
The idea that specifically seeking out a woman for a board position is discriminatory against men is so fucking stupid, but since it seems to be crux of these low-intelligence responses talking about "reverse discrimination" I guess it has to be addressed (again). If one of the goals of an effective board of directors is to compile a group with varied experiences and perspectives in order to better see and understand challenges and opportunities, then neglecting the perspective of almost 50% of the population is clearly against the board's (and company's) best interest. Saying "we need to add another woman" isn't discriminatory against men because the very obvious connotation is that the board already has a strong and varied male perspective.