Hexagram 44 contains the passage that best demonstrates why naming a translation matters, and the disagreement is not technical but substantive.
Wilhelm's judgement, in the standard English version, reads that the maiden is powerful and that one should not marry such a maiden. Legge's 1882 rendering is comparable in effect. Read that way the hexagram is a warning about a woman who is too strong, and generations of English-language commentary have taken it as exactly that, with results that range from the awkward to the indefensible.
Translators working from the Bronze Age stratum read it very differently. The name Gou carries senses of meeting, encountering and coupling, and the judgement can be read as an omen about an encounter, something met unexpectedly, of uncertain benefit, with the marriage language functioning as the concrete instance that a Zhou diviner would have used to record it. Rutt's 1996 version and other manuscript-informed translations take this route.
The structural reading supports the second. The figure is five yang lines with a single yin entering at the bottom: something small has arrived beneath something large and will grow. That is a statement about the beginning of an infiltration, and it is the exact counterpart of hexagram 24, where a single yang enters at the bottom of five yin.
The point to hold is that a great deal of what English readers take to be the I Ching's view of women is a translation decision made in the 1920s, transmitted through a single dominant English edition, and not obviously required by the Chinese.