Sirach is quite ambiguous actually, in the Greek and the Hebrew original as well. Looking at differing translations alone will give you some idea of the variety of interpretations. We should be wary of jumping to conclusions from translations based solely or primarily on the Septuagint, which is itself a translation of the Hebrew in a genre that is very difficult to translate (proverbial literature).
Sirach 42:13-14 reads in the Hebrew original (this is from the Dead sea scrolls):
(42:13) :3r12 כי מבגד יצא עש [[ ]] ומאשה רעת אשה׃
(42:14) :4r12 מטוב רוע איש מטיב אשה [[ ]] ובית מחרפת תביע אשה׃ >טוב רע איש
מחפרת מטוב אשה ובת מחרפת תביע חרפה<
Verse 13 is clear, but verse 14 is quite cryptic.
This is interpreted by Benjamin Parker and Martin Abegg as:
For from a garment comes a moth, and from a woman, woman's wickedness.
Better is the evil of a man than to be treated well by a woman. [] And a woman pours out a houseful of reproach. OR (this is another rendering) Better to be harmed by a man than to be shamed by a woman's goodness.
As for the interpretation of these verses, in regard to verse 13, I think this is as much saying that the wickedness of women frequently is sparked in the context of other women (gossip). As for verse 14, the renderings here are split by the ambiguity of the Hebrew word for "shaming." It could be saying many things, far more than what the Greek Septuagint suggests it could. One thing it could mean is that the so-called goodness or air quote goodness ("goodness") is worse than the badness/wickedness of men. That is as much to say, there is nothing so dangerous to a man (Sirach was written by a man to young men) as a woman that smiles and charms and means nothing good to that man.
Verse 14 could also mean (because the Hebrew word "ra'ah cannot only mean moral evil but also bad fortune) that the harm or bad situation that another man can bring another man into does not compare to the harm that a smiling, "good" woman can bring to him. I think these interpretations are the fairest to the original because Sirach has many good things to say about good women in another place.
As for the Sirach 25 verse, this does nothing more than restate what Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all affirm is Scripture (1 Timothy 2):
Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα: καὶ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν. σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης.
For Adam was first made, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was beguiled in her transgression. But she will be saved through childbearing, if they remain in belief and love and holiness with self-control.
Which is harder to accept in a modern context? If you're going to inveigh in this way against Sirach, then one must inveigh as well against Paul in 1 Timothy.
In Sirach 22:3, unfortunately, we have no surviving Hebrew manuscript available, so we have to rely on the Greek (and I suppose the Peshitta Syriac), which I can't find.
Here's the Greek:
αἰσχύνη πατρὸς ἐν γεννήσει ἀπαιδεύτου, θυγάτηρ δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἐλαττώσει γίνεται.
The shame of a father is in the generation of an untrainable child, but/and a[n] [untrainable] daughter at a loss is born.
Now the key issue is whether or not the word 'untrainable' is assumed to be present in meaning in the second half of the clause. This seems to be quite possible, because this type of thing often occurs in Hebrew poetry, particularly in the Psalms, where an adjective found in the first half of the clause is assumed to be functioning for a noun in the second half of the clause. Sirach says good things about good women elsewhere, so it does not make sense to be that the birth of a daughter in his eyes must necessarily be a loss, point blank. Also, we have a similar statement in Ecclesiastes 7 that both Protestants and Catholics have to recognize.
אֲשֶׁר עוֹד-בִּקְשָׁה נַפְשִׁי, וְלֹא מָצָאתִי: אָדָם אֶחָד מֵאֶלֶף, מָצָאתִי--וְאִשָּׁה בְכָל-אֵלֶּה, לֹא מָצָאתִי
The other verses do not prove too problematic to me. Sirach 36:29 is really typical of the way the Old Testament in general talks about women. Must that necessarily carry over into the new covenant? No. The last verse, Sirach 26:12, does not seem an issue either unless you're going to reject the book of Ezekiel, which has two sections that are often described as "pornographic" and "not to be read in church" about midway through the book.
Finally, much of this book is written in the spirit of exaggeration and hyperbole. Things that contradict one another are often found. We have to be very careful when we read any isolated verse that we pull from the wisdom literature and have to be willing to read both sympathetically and in the context of the times.