It's a relief to know that what I regularly see – so few women on stage, so few plays written or directed by women – is not just me feeling left out. As the research published in the Guardian into the representation of women in British theatre proved: I am a woman and therefore I am left out. Yes, British theatre often leaves out anyone who is not white, male, middle class and able-bodied, but women are not a minority. When we leave women out of our casting, our programming, we doubly disadvantage women who are part of any minority.

So, we have the stats to prove the lack of women, now what? Well, either you think this is fine – in which case, stop reading and hop back to 1974 – Love Thy Neighbour is on, you'll find it hilarious – or you agree that inequality is a problem and we do something about it.

Here are some options. We can acknowledge that the norm is a play about men (with one wife, maybe), written and directed by men. It will be different seeing balance on our stages. Oh well. Traditionally, actors blacked up to play Othello, we realised that was absurd, we got over it.

We can commission more women writers – and not just young women writers. Our sexist world being what it is, older women may have taken longer to establish themselves, longer to call themselves writers; may have had less time while raising children and so didn't write as much, become as skilled, as successful. Other professions realise the need to entice older women back to the workforce, and theatre can too. We're still seeing too little work from middle-aged and older women – women who are the exact age and gender of the majority of the ticket-buyers.

We can stop saying it's "authentic" to do all-male Shakespeare. Only if your Juliet is played by a boy, your actors get their scripts a week before, and they perform in daylight, ideally at the Globe. Otherwise it's a preference. If you prefer working with men, say so. At least then we'll know what we're dealing with.

We can support the Equity women's committee which is doing great work on this issue. We can stop worrying that more women will mean less artistically meritorious work. There are more roles for men and fewer male actors. There are fewer roles for women and more female actors. In practice this means that less able male actors often get more work. More balance of male and female characters means better actors in all roles, means better theatre. Elizabeth Freestone's original report, on which the Guardian research is based, notes that simply by gender-blind casting minor Shakespearian roles (advisers, heralds, leaving leads and major roles as they are) the mere 16% of roles Shakespeare wrote for women becomes a far lovelier 40% to play today.

We can put our money where our concerns are and choose to buy tickets to those shows where women take the lead, where women take the stage.

Vitally, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Theatre need to step up to the responsibility that comes with their funding. Yes, the canon might be written by men, but they don't have to be directed, designed and mostly acted by men as well. It is not good enough to say it's changing slowly, not when the truly brave work is being done by the many fringe companies making work on a (barely funded or unfunded) shoestring: those companies performing in pubs, tunnels, car parks, warehouses and tents, attracting audiences that are often young or new to theatre. These are the audiences our main stages are hungry for and, crucially, they will be the mainstream audience in 10 years. An audience who no longer think it's normal to see mostly men on stage, written by, directed and designed mostly by men. Our big buildings need to be ready for them.

Above all, we women – and the men with us – need to get over our fear of being considered "too feminist". We need to stand up, admit that it hurts, it infuriates to see only men's names in the list of makers and performers. If Shakespeare is right, and our job is to hold a mirror up to nature, then that mirror must reflect all of nature, not just the male half.